WSP09117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJJ2J7 36 These last four complaInts (b, c, d, and e) were upheld by the Court. It is Interesting to note the wide range of losses that both sides felt should be charged to water In transit. The plaintiff felt that 4~1o or great- er was lost, whIle Hlnderlider felt that 8 to 12t'1o represented the loss. The Court states, '~ach party admits that in situations of this character, It is not possIble to obtaIn exact figures". However, it cont(nues by saying, ". . . this loss, whatever it is, is the duty of the State Engineer to ac- curately determine &hd charge against any and all waters stored and tran~- ferred In pursuance of this law". The law referred to is Sec. 80 Chapter 90 Colorado Statutes Annotated 1935, which allows owners of.'.reservoirs to use natural streams to conduct their waters provIded that allowances are made for transit losses, such losses to be determined accurately by the State Engineer. The word "accurately" was later defined as that "possible under the best engineering practices". After considering these complaints the Court issued its Judgment and" Decree o~ April 16, 1945. In that decision, the State Engineer was given 90 days to determine all 10$ses before releases could be made. After this decision, the plaintiff filed a motion to have the Findings and Judgment amended while the defendents filed for a new trial. The motion for amendment was subsequently rejected, ttlough'itl1e Court did modify Its Judgment on April 16, 1945. This modificatIon On June 20, 1945 changed the April 16, 1945 Judgment to an interlocutory order (or intermediate), re- tained jurisdiction of the case to see that its orders were carried out by the Sta~e Engineer, and gave the State Engineer a "reasonable amount of. tIme" to comply wi th the Court's orders. On July 12, 1945, just a few days before the 90 day execution limit of July 16, 1945, M. C. Hinderllder submitted a report to the Court of his plan for complying with its orders. This included plans for Installation of gagIng stations on the creeks above the reservoirs, improvements to measuring devIces on trans-mountain diversions and procedures for calcula- ting evaporation losses from the reservoirs. It ls within this report that Hlnderllder proposes using 0.07 of I per cent per mile of stream channel. These charges he states, ". . . amount to from 10 to 15 per cent of the reservoir releases...". ThIs charge of 0.D7 of l%..permile: has.,not been .... changed from that tIme up through.the 1970 IrrIgation season. On May 26, 1947, M. C. Hinderlider submitted his report on what had been done during the period July 16, 1945 to April 30, 1947 to comply with the Court's orders. The defendents tben fl led a motion with the Court to make the Interlocutory order a final decree, establishing that the State Engineer had fulfilled the Court's orders. On September 18, 1947, Judge. Blunt extended the orders until October 1, 1947, at which time another report from the State Engineer would be filed. The plaIntiff would have 30 days to object to these reports and the defendents 30 more days to an- swer to these objections. This extended report was submitted, objections were filed on Jap~ary 30, 1948 and on May 28, 1948.-there was a hearing in Canon City to decide whether the State Engineer had complied with the Court's orders.