## Facts

- Wyoming Hereford Ranch and Hammond Packing Company were competing irrigators diverting water from Crow Creek, which flowed through Cheyenne and across both parties’ lands.
- An 1888 territorial decree recognized certain irrigation rights on Crow Creek with priorities dating to the 1880s; the ranch traced its senior priority to this period.
- After statehood, Wyoming adopted an 1890 water law establishing state administrative supervision and a permit system for new appropriations.
- Hammond obtained state permits in 1909 and 1911 to divert Crow Creek water for irrigation.
- The ranch diverted and beneficially used Crow Creek water for irrigation before 1890, including through the Bolln Ditch, and continued that use after statehood.
- The Bolln Ditch use and related irrigated acreage were not described in detail in the 1888 decree, and the ranch never obtained a post-1890 permit for that use.
- In administrative and judicial proceedings determining relative rights, the district court ruled for the ranch, recognizing its senior rights; Hammond appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ranch’s pre-1890 diversion and beneficial use through the Bolln Ditch constituted a valid vested appropriation senior to Hammond’s 1909 and 1911 permitted rights.
2. Whether the 1890 water law required pre-existing users to obtain permits after statehood for continued validity or priority of their pre-1890 uses.
3. Whether construing the 1890 law to invalidate or subordinate established pre-1890 beneficial uses would improperly impair vested property rights.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment for Wyoming Hereford Ranch.
- The court held that pre-1890 appropriations perfected by diversion and beneficial use created vested rights that were not invalidated or made junior by failure to obtain a post-1890 permit.
- The ranch’s pre-statehood appropriation, including the Bolln Ditch use supported by proof of historical and continuing beneficial use, was senior to Hammond’s later permitted appropriations.

## Legal Principles

- In Wyoming, a water right is perfected by actual diversion and beneficial application to beneficial use; such perfected pre-statutory uses are vested property rights.
- A later-enacted permit system governs new appropriations prospectively and must be construed to leave vested pre-existing appropriations unaffected.
- Territorial decrees recognizing water rights may evidence priority and existing use but are not necessarily exhaustive itemizations that negate otherwise proven pre-decree beneficial uses.
- Under prior appropriation, “first in time” has priority: senior vested rights must be satisfied before junior permitted rights from the same source, limited by the extent of beneficial use.
- Statutory construction should avoid interpretations that would confiscate or impair vested rights without due process.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that established pre-1890 irrigation uses on Crow Creek, proven by diversion and beneficial application (including through the Bolln Ditch), remained valid vested rights with senior priority over Hammond’s later state-permitted appropriations.


Wyoming Hereford Ranch v. Hammond Packing Co., 33 Wyo. 14, 236 P. 764 (Wyo. 1925)