Case No. 3345 Fourth Amended Complaint and Related July 24 1942

Home Browse Search

thus deliver over to the said reservoir owners and the usersof the waters from said reservoirs, and to older priorities 1n said Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67 by means of the �River'RUn$n aforesaid, the entire normal flow and volume of the waters of said River and its tributary streams, all to the great and ir- reparable injury, loss and damage of this plaintiff and of the said other similarly situated users of water for irrigatio in said Water Districts Nos. 11 and 12, and that this plaint Nf and the said other similarly situated users of water in said mentioned Water Districts are wholly without any plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law in the premises. a That the said Defendant water distributing officials in the manner aforesaid and in obedience to the direction and orders of the said Defendant, M. C,. Hinderlider have been and are knowing- ly, wrongfully, unlawfully and wilfully making and attempting to force orders permitting said "River Runsll, and by means .thereof have knowingly, wilfully, wrongfully and unlawfully attempted and still so attempt and threaten to continue to attempt to deprive this`:plaintiff company and the said other similarly situated users of ;water for irrigation in said -dater `;Districts Nos. 11 and 12 of the use and benefit of .the waters of.said`'River and its tributary streams, falsely and fraudulently pretending that they by so doing are.benefigting and aiding older priorities of right to the use of water for irrigation at points and places located hundreds of miles down the River, and with the object and purpose of leading the'sad reservoir owners and the users of the waters stored therein into the false belief that they will thereby be enabled to obtain and apply to wholly new uses and purposes largely in- creased quantities of the waters of said River and its tributary streams, but that for the said wrongful, unlawful and discrimina- tory,acts and doings of'the said defendant water distributing of- f ctals no cause or excuse would or could exist fox making the said "River Runs" and closing the ditch of this Flaintiff.00mpany or the ditches.of Other similarly situated water users in said Water Districts Nos. 11'and 12. FOR A FURTHER AND FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SAID DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES: 1. Plaintiff adopts Paragraphs l to 17, both inclusive, of its First`Cause'of Action as Paragraphs -1 to 17 both inclusive of its Fifth Cause of Action, adopts Paragraphs l to 5', both in- clusive, of its Second Cause of Action as Paragraphs 1 to 59 both inclusive, of its Fifth 'Cause of 'Action, adopts paragraphs 1 and 2 both inclusive, of its,Third Cause of Action as Paragraphs l and 2 both inclusive, of its Fifth Cause of Action, adopts Paragraphs 1 to 6 both inclusive, of its Fourth cause of Action, as Para- graphs 1 to 6'both-inolusive of its: Fifth Cause of Action as fully and completely as though` reiterated and set forth in this, its Fifth Cause of Action, in full. 2. That during the past five or six years immediately preceding the commencement of this action, the said defendant water dis tributing officials at the instance and direction of the Defendant, M.'C. Hinderlider; State Engineer as aforesaid, began making what are' knotm as 'River Cal s,.1! the same consisting of orders direct- ing the said Defendant,' 5.'A., Burnett, as Water Commissioner,in said Water District Xo.. li, to close and `shut down all irrigation ditches, including that of this plaintiff company, having priori ties of right later in' point of time than the dates specified` in such orders, to the end that the maximum amount of water allowed (but never previously used to the injury of< plaintiff and other similarly situated users of water.foi irrigation purposes, by the ditches and canals in said Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67 -1�'