78 



of tbe ditch. An injury occurs to tlieir rights if that flow be prevented. It 

 follows that they suffer an injury within this State through the diversion of 

 defendants at points above the head gates of Gladewater ditch." 



As regards the distribution of the North Platte River between 

 ditches in Wyoming and Nebraska, therefore, the above citations 

 show that both States are committed to the doctrine that an appro- 

 priator in the lower State may secure protection against diversions 

 in the upper State in the courts of the upper State, Avhile the Wyo- 

 ming court holds that diversions in the upper State can be restrained 

 by the courts of the lower State. 



The same doctrine as to the courts of the upper State has been 

 announced by the su^Dreme court of Utah in the case of' Conant v. 

 Deep Creek and Curlew Valley Irrigation Company,'' and the dis- 

 trict court of Idaho assumed jurisdiction over an interstate stream 

 in the case referred to in the Utah case just cited. In this case the 

 Utah court says: 



It is a recognized rule of law that a person who has appropriated water at 

 a certain point in a stream is entitled to have so much of the waters of the 

 said stream as he has appropriated flow down to him to the point of his diver- 

 sion, and if the settlers higher up on the stream in another State whose appro- 

 priations are subseipient, divert any of the waters of the stream which have 

 been so appropriated then the courts of the latter State will protect the first 

 settler in his rights. The Idaho courts, therefore, have ample and complete 

 jurisdiction to protect the rights of respondents to have the waters which they 

 have appropriated and which they divert in Utah flow through the channel of 

 the stream and to limit and determine the rights of the Idaho appropriators 

 with reference thereto ; and l)y the decree entered in the suit in the district 

 court of Oneida County, Idaho, such rights were fully protected and may be 

 enforced by proper proceedings in that court. 



It has been contended that an appropriator would not receive 

 justice in the courts of another State, but it will be noted that in 

 each of the decisions quoted, except the Utah case, the decision was 

 rendered iti the State whose citizens w^ould be deprived of water 

 by the enforcement of the decision. 



In the case of Hodge v. Eaton '^ the Federal district court granted 

 an injunction restraining diversions froiu Sand Creek in Colorado 

 to the injury of prior appropriators in Wyoming. 



Each of the States through which the Platte River flows has 



recognized, however, that an ajjpeal to the courts every time a ditch 



owner does not receive what he considers his proper supply of water 



is an expensive remedy. Referritig to the disadvantages of leaving 



such tnatters entirely to the courts, the Wyoming court in Willey v. 



Decker " says : 



It is evident, however, that one irrigating lands in another State must suffer 

 some disadvantages. The State laws regulating the distribution of water can 



« 73 Pac, 210. 6 6G Pac, 188. " 135 Fed., 411. 



