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

Home Browse Search

in said Water Districts Nos. 11 and 12 similarly situated of the waters decreed thereto. 4. That having so allowed and permitted such unlawful storage of water in said Reservoirs thereby creating and causing a substantial shortage in the water supply of said River and its tributary streams, the said Defendants for the purpose of partially replacing the water so taken from said River and streams, and promoting and aiding a large increase in the use of waters under the priorities of right in said Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67, have wrong- fully, unjustly and unlawfully attempted and still are attempting by means of what is known as "River Calls," the same consisting of orders issued by the Defendant, N1. C. Hinderlider, as hereinabove alleged, to close and shut down all irrigating ditches, including that of this plaintiff company, having priorities of right later in point of time than a date specified in such orders, and to close and shut down the ditch of this plaintiff company and the ditches of other similarly situated water users in said Districts Nos. 11 and 120 and deprive them of the use and benefit of the waters of said River and its tributary streams, heretofore always used, had and enjoyed by them, and that the said Defendant Water Commission- er has obeyed and is obeying the said orders, and unless restrain- ed will continue to so obey said wrongful orders, thereby injuring, damaging and destroying the crops raised and grown upon the lands lying under said ditches, and destroying the value of said lands, all to the great and irreparable loss, injury and damage of this plaintiff company and the other similarly situated users of water for irrigation in said Water Districts Nos. 11 and 12. 5• That the closing and shutting down of the said Ditch of this plaintiff company and the ditches of other similarly situated users of water for irrigation in said Water Districts Nos. 11 and 12 by the means and manner aforesaid is without any lawful or statutory authority and does not aid or increase the flow of water in the said River in Water Districts Nos. 14, 17 and 67, but that the small increase in the volume of water flowing in said River caused by such said shutting down and closing of said ditches is temporarily lost during the irrigating season 'by absorption in the banks and bars of said River in an attempt to convey the said increase a distance of to -wit, two hundred (200) miles down stream, but that nevertheless, they, the said defendant water distributing officials persist in closing and shutting down the said ditch of this plaintiff company and threaten that they will continue so to do, and that this plaintiff company, and others similarly situated will be irreparably damaged by said wrongful or unlawful acts, and have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law in the premises. FOR A FURTHER AND THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, THIS PLAINTIFF ALLEGES: 1. Plaintiff adopts Paragraphs numbered 1 to 17, both inclusive, of its First Cause of Action, and Paragraphs numbered l to 5, both inclusive, of its Second Cause of Action, as fully and completely as though reiterated and set forth in this, its Third Cause of Action, in full. 2. That the Defendants have permitted the various reservoirs as aforesaid to store water from the Western Slope in the above named reservoirs and have permitted and allowed said reservoirs to run said Western Slope water in and through their reservoirs and later discharge the said Western Slope water into the Arkansas River, which said River is used as a conduit for the transporta- tion of said Western Slope waters to the canals and ditches located -7-