Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 41-4-317 (2026)

Determination of priorities to streams;

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

limitations on amount of water to be allotted; disposition of
excess water generally.

At the first regular meeting of the board of control after the
completion of such measurement by the state engineer, and the
return of said evidence by said division superintendent, it
shall be the duty of the board of control to make and cause to
be entered of record in its office, an order determining and
establishing the several priorities of right to the use of
waters of said stream, and the amounts of appropriations of the
several persons claiming water from such stream, and the
character and kind of use for which said appropriation shall be
found to have been made. Each appropriation shall be determined
in its priority and amount, by the time by which it shall have
been made, and the amount of water which shall have been
supplied for beneficial purposes; provided, that such
appropriator shall at no time be entitled to the use of more
water than he can make a beneficial application of on lands, for
the benefit of which the appropriation may have been secured,
and the amount of any appropriation made by reason of an
enlargement of distributing works, shall be determined in like
manner; provided, that no allotment for the direct use of the
natural unstored flow of any stream shall exceed one (1) cubic
foot per second for each seventy (70) acres of land for which
said appropriation shall be made, and provided, further, where
there may be in any stream water in excess of the total amount
of all appropriations from said stream, such excess shall be
divided among the appropriators therefrom in proportion to the
acreage covered by their respective permits, and provided, also,
that such additional water shall be beneficially used, except as
hereinafter provided.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: Cremer v. State Bd. of Control, 675 P.2d 250 (Wyo. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cremer v. State Bd. of Control, 675 P.2d 250 (Wyo. 1984). · cites it 5× “RELEVANT SURPLUS WATER STATUTES Section 41-4-317, W.S.1977 contemplates the determination of priorities of rights of use, the amounts of the appropriations based upon the acreage irrigated, limitations of water to be allotted and disposition of excess water, and provides in…”

Thayer v. City of Rawlins, 594 P.2d 951 (Wyo. 1979). · cites it 5× “The considerations under which the two types of return flow are treated will probably differ substantially. Beneficial use of appropriations for irrigation can be controlled by setting a limit in relation to the amount of land to be irrigated.”

Green River Dev. Co. v. FMC Corp., 660 P.2d 339 (Wyo. 1983). · cites it 2× “Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and limit of the right to use water at all times, not exceeding the statutory limit except as provided by section 122-117 Revised Statutes of Wyoming, 1931, as amended by chapter 105, section 1, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935 [§…”

In Re: The Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River Sys. & All Other Sources, State of Wyoming<br /><br />Frank E. Mohr v. State, 2015 WY 104 (Wyo. 2015). · cites it 2× “Johnson, the owner of Tract 109, waived the right to water under the Farmers Canal Permit in 1916, and that decision was made final when the Perkins Ditch Enlargement certificate of appropriation was issued in 1922.”

Garber v. Wagonhound Land & Livestock Co., 279 P.3d 525 (Wyo. 2012). · cites it 4× “See generally, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-4-317 (LexisNexis 2011).”

State ex rel. Squaw Mountain Cattle Co. v. Wheatland Irrigation Dist., 728 P.2d 172 (Wyo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 41-4-317, W.S.1977. On the basis of these provisions Wheatland Irrigation District contends that Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Company is not entitled to receive more than 1 c.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.