Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas State Of Nebraska v. State Of Wyoming…

Wyoming contends for a system of mass allocation between the States, saying that no attempt can or should be made in this proceeding to determine the priorities interstate of the various appropriators in each State. The proposal of Wyoming envisages distribution of natural flow and storage water indiscriminately as a common fund to all users. It is based on the theory that there is a sufficiency of water for everyone.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas State Of Nebraska v. State Of Wyoming…

We are dealing here only with an allocation, through the States, of water rights among appropriators. The rights of the United States in respect to the storage of water are recognized. So are the water rights of the landowners. To allocate those water rights to the United States would be to disregard the rights of the landowners. To allocate them to the States, who represent their citizens parens patriae in this proceeding, [12] in no wise interferes with the ownership and operation by the United States of its storage and power plants, works, and facilities.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas State Of Nebraska v. State Of Wyoming…

A genuine controversy exists. The gravity and importance of the case are apparent. The difficulties of drafting and enforcing a decree are no justification for us to refuse to perform the important function entrusted to us by the Constitution. Those considerations did not prevail in State of Wyoming v. Colorado, supra, where an apportionment of the waters of an interstate stream was made. Nor did they prevail in the drainage canal cases.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature