The Fort Lyon Canal: The First 100 Years 1897 to 1997

Home Browse Search

the river. Repairs were no sooner made than another flood came which washed out the headgate entirely, necessitating the building of another one. A dam across the river had long been an absolute ne- cessity for diverting water to the canal, and the Court instructed the receiver to cause this dam to be built, at a cost of $8,500.00, which was also paid for by his cer- tificates. The receiver continued in charge of the canal until July, 1897, during which time he expended a total amount of $86,000.00. His trials and tribulations during the period of his receivership were as grievous as those of the farm- ers. What crops were raised commanded very low prices, and it was impossible to levy assessments suffi- cient for the operation and maintenance of the canal together with the much needed improvements without confiscating their water rights. Assessments were lev- ied each year, however, by the receiver, but not in suffi- cient amounts to pay for repairs and operation, and a debt of $21,000.00 was created, for which a mortgage was executed by the receiver to the Mercantile Trust Company, of New York City. During the time the receiver was in charge of the prop- erty the La Junta and Lamar Canal Company executed a deed to the King Reservoir, and a perpetual right to the use of the canal for filling the said reservoir to the La Junta and Lamar Canal Company, a corporation con- trolled by the First National Bank of Denver. Meantime the decree of the District court of Prowers County in the John Hess suit, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, pro- vided that the old La Junta and Lamar Canal should 16