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

Home Browse Search

irrigation purposes, and applied for and obtained in the Courts of said Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67 decrees awarding to their said ditches and canals priorities of right to large quanti- ties of water of said river, with earlier date for such priorities than the dates claimed to have been awarded to the ditch of the plaintiff company, and earlier than numerous other priorities of right to the use of waters claimed to have been awarded and decreed to many other ditches in said Water Districts Nos. 11 and 12. 9. Deny each and every allegation contained in said first cause of action as set forth in said Fourth Amended Complaint not hereinabove specifically admitted. II And for their answer to the second cause of action con- tained in said Fourth Amended Complaint, defendants aver: 1. Adopt and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 9, both inclusive, of defendants' answer to plaintiff's first cause of action herein, 2. Admit that located near the source of said river there are certain large storage reservoirs, to -wit: The Clear Creek Reservoir, the Sugar Loaf Reservoir and the TwIn Lakes Reservoir, the last mentioned reservoir consisting of two large natural lakes, and that each of said reservoirs had decreed priorities of right to store water for irrigation purposes under the provisions of a certain decree awarded and rendered in the District Court of Chaffee County, Colorado on the 14th day of July, A.D. 1913, and that each and all of said storage rights are by the terms of said decree expressly made subject and inferior to all decreed priorities of right to the use of water awarded prior to that date, to the use and benefit of water for irrigation in said Water District No. 11. 3. Admit that the defendant, M. C. Hinderlider, as State Engineer, has heretofore adopted, and is still adopting, by means of what is known as "river calls ", the same consisting of orders issued by the defendant, U. C. Hinderlider, to close and shut down all irrigating ditches, including that of plaintiff company, having, or claiming to have, priorities of right later in point of time than a date specified in such orders, for the purpose of permitting the waters of said Arkansas River to flow down said stream for the purpose of supplying ditches and canals in Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67 having decreed priorities of right to the use of water, senior in date and superior in right to the priorities claimed by plaintiff. 4. Deny each and every allegation in said second cause. of action as set forth in said Fourth Amended Complaint, not here- inabove specifically admitted. M And for their answer to the third cause of action contained in said Fourth Amended Complaint, defendants aver: 1. Adopt and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 9, both inclusive, of defendantst answer to plaintiff's first cause of action herein. 2. Admit that the defendants have permitted the reservoirs described in plaintiff's second cause of action to store water from the Western Slope in said reservoirs and have permitted and allowed said reservoirs to run said Western Slope water in and through their reservoirs and later to discharge the said Western Slope waters into the Arkansas River, which said river is used as a conduit for the transportion of said Western Slope waters to canals and ditches located in Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67. -2-