WSP09117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJiJ,lJb 35 Summary of Court Case No. 3345 Sunnyside Bark Ditch vs M. S. Hinderllder, State Engineer; C. W. Beach, Division No.2 Engineer; and J. A. Burnett, Water Commissioner, Water District No. II. The court .case of Sunnyside Park Ditch vs. M. C. Hinderllder, et al was an Important case for Colorado water administration, establishing a precedent on the questions of storage rights versus direct flow rights. The judgment and decrees Issued by the Court in this case have been the basis for admin- istration of the Arkansas River in Colorado for the past twenty years. Fol- lowing is a summary of the events which took place in this case. The case began in the summer of 1944 with four hearings without jury be- fore Judge Joseph D. Blunt in Sallda, .Co)orado. The hearings lasted until August l2, 1944 with the judgment and decrees being made On April 16, 1945. There were five specific ~omplaints made by the plaintiff; four of these were upheld and one was rejected by the Court. A description of these com- pIa I nts fo 11 ows: (a) '7he rights of the plaintiff and others similarly situated to have the conditions on the stream maintained as they existed at the time plaintiff's appropriations were made, as set forth in the First Cau~e of Action." The plaintiff felt that administration proced- ures in Water Districts 14, 17 and 67 were improper, causing short- ages in districts 11 and 12. The Court rejected this complaint, stating that the evidence does not show any Improper administration procedure on the part of the defendents. (b) "The failure of defendents to make a proper and accurate charge, or any charge, as a matter of fact, for loss by evaporation and other causes, to the reservoirs involved In this action, to-wit: Sugar loaf, Twin lakes and Clear Creek." (c) '7he failure of the defendents to enforce the law in the adminis- tration of the aforesaid reservoirs by permitting Illegal storage, and by failure to install proper measuring devices on the inflow streams of said reservoirs, and by permitting the reservoir com- panies to take credIt for more water than actually enters their reservoirs in the trans-mountain diversions." (d) "By faIlure to make any charges for losses occasioned by evaporation seepage and other causes In the trans-mountain diversions." (e) "By failure to make proper, sufficient and accurate charges for losses by way of seepage, evaporation and other causes of the waters In transit from the reservoirs to the ditches and canals located In Water Districts 14, 17 and 67."