My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11196
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11196
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:16:30 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:47:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8135.100
Description
Ditch Companies - Amity Mutual Irrigation Company
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
1/1/1971
Author
Amity Mutual
Title
Annual Report - 1970
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The Amity Mutuallrrigatian Company <br /> <br />1463 <br /> <br />CASE NO, 4 INMAN vs.AMITY <br /> <br />This suit was brought against us by Jerre R. Inman for damages he <br />alleges he suffered because of a break in our ditch on July 12, 1970, due <br />he claims to our negligence. In this suit he claims damages in the amount <br />of $12,000,00 plus punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,00 This case <br />has not been set for trial arid we are exploring a possible disposition of <br />same out oC court. <br /> <br />CASE NO, 5 FT, LYON ADJUDICATION <br /> <br />The Ft, Lyon Canal has filed an application with the Pueblo Court <br />(Water Division) in which it seeks to obtain an adjudication to divert, by <br />use of ditches, 25 c.C.s. of water from Thurston Lake. They claim this <br />water is non-tributary. <br />They further, in the same application, assert that they have a storage <br />right (!\:o. 11 for the storage of 1,285.58 acre feet of water in the Prince <br />Reservoir located in SW1/4 9 and NW1/4 of 16 and l\'El/4 of 17, ali in <br />21-46 Prowers County.) They seek to transfer this so called right to <br />Thurston and divert from Thurston. <br /> <br />Your Company, along with three other parties have entered pro- <br />tests against these proposals. No hearing date has been set. <br /> <br />While , these suits are certainly not welcome additions to our opera- <br />tion or the canal, we have no choice 'When said (as tn the first three cases) <br />but to defend. Further the Board feels we must also, to protest our rights. <br />protest Case No.5. Case No. 4 is the only case instituted by us and it is <br />felt we must determine this issue in order to plan our future operation. <br /> <br />While to date the legal costs have been relatively light with respect <br />to all of these cases, they can as these cases progress become quite sub- <br />stantial, and the stockholders should be fully aware of this. <br /> <br />In concluding, we wish to express our appreciation to the stock- <br />holders, directors, officers, and employees for the excellent cooperation <br />during a year, which from a legal standpoint, has been most trying. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Robert G, Rogers <br />Attorney <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.