Contrast Between the US Irrigating Company, et al. and the Graham Ditch Company, et al.

Home Browse Search

claimed legal title and its claimed existing prior and paramount right as aginst the said defendants and each of them to perpetually divert a certain quantity of the flowing waters of the Arkansas River into com- plainantle ditches, and forever restraining and enjoining said defendants and each of them from interfering with, obstructing or diverting the flow- ing waters of said river within the State of Colorado, in the manner and to the extent in the bill of complaint in said pending suit set forth, and to enforce the claimed legal right and title of the said complainant to the perpetual, uninterrupted flow of a certain quantity of the waters of said river flowing in that portion of the channel thereof situated in the State of Colorado, and to restrain the diversion thereof from said river in the State of Colorado, by the said defendants and each of themf and to obtain a decree of said Court, adjudging said complainant to be vested with the prior and paramount right and title, as against said de- fendants, and each and every of them, to annually and perpetually divert from the surface flow of the natural waters of said river into the Great Eastern Ditch, owned by complainant, two hundred fifty (250) cubic feet of water per second of time, during the irrigating season of each and every year, and into the South Side Ditch, owned by oomplainant, one hundred (100) cubic feet of water per second of time during the irrigating season of each and every year, and that the defendants have not nor have either of them the right to divert any of the flowing waters of the said river while said waters are running in the channel of said river within the State of Colorado, when the effect or result of said diversion will be to diminish the natural flow of the surface waters of said river to an extent which will deprive said complainant of the benefit, opportunity and advantage of diverting said quantity of the flowing waters of said river into its said ditches; to determine by final decree of said court the amount of the volume or quantity of the natural waters of said river which shall be allowed and permitted to flow by and pass the headgates respectively of each and every of the defendant +s ditches, to the end that during the irrigating season of each and every year, as said season is defined in the bill of complaint in said pending suit, sufficient of the flowing waters of said river shall be permitted to flow down into the State of Kansas, unobstructed, undiverted and unimpeded in any man- ner by the said defendants or either of them,, which, after allowing for necessary loss by evapo- - and seepage will constantly furnish, during the whole of each irrigating season, sufficient waters at the headgates of complainant=s ditches and each of them to supply said ditches in the aggregate, during the whole of every said irrigating season, three hundred fifty (350) cubic feet of water per second of time; that if the said Court shall decline to restrain the defendants or any one or more of them, in the matter of the diversion of the waters of the said river, to the full ex-tent-in said bill of complaint prayed, that in such case the said corporate defendants and each of them be perpetually restrained from diverting., during any part of said irrigating season, any quantity whatsoever of the natural waters of said river, for the purpose of feed- ing or supplying any of their reservoirs, or either of them or any reser- voir in existence at the time of the commencement of said suit, or which may thereafter be constructed by the said corporation defendants or any of them; that as to each and every of said corporate defendants owning or using any reservoirs which were constructed after the date when the work of oonstrucing complainant's reservoir, known as Reservoir No. 5, 9