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

• Description: Case No. 3345 Fourth Amended Complaint and Related July 24 1942
• State: CO
• Date: 7/24/1942
• Author: Boyle, John; Stienmeyer, E.; Rush, William
• Title: Case No. 3345 Fourth Amended Complaint and Related July 24 1942
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

temporarily lost either in seepage or evaporation in the carrying
and conveying of the same a distance of two hundred (200) miles or
more down the said River and that practically the entire amount
of said increased volume of water in said River resulting from
the aforesaid so- called "Reservoir Runs" is lost by sinkage,
seepage and absorption in the banks and bars of said River, all
of which is well known to the said Defendants, who nevertheless,
wrongfully, unjustly and unlawfully have permitted, aided and
allowed the owners of said reservoirs and the users of waters
therefrom to take and divert from said River at the points and
places aforesaid, an amount and quantity of water equal to, to-
wit, ninety (90) percent of the amount and quantt�y of waters
released from said reservoirs as aforesaid, and that they, the said
water officials wrongfully permit the said owners and users of
the waters stored as aforesaid to actually take and divert said
amount and quantity of waters from the said River at the points
and places aforesaid, regardless of the fact that the flow and
volume of water in said River at the points and places aforesaid
has not been materially increased by the said so- called "Reservoir
Runs," and wholly without regard for any senior or junior decreed
priorities of right to the use and benefit of waters from said
River for irrigation purposes, and that the said defendant water
distributing officials unless restrained will continue to aid,
abet, assist and encourage the wrongful use and diversion of said
waters as aforesaid.
4.
That in making the "Reservoir Runs" aforesaid the said defend-
ant water distributing officials allow and permit the releasing from
said reservoirs into said River a volume of water amounting to
several hundred cubic feet per second of time, which causes a high-
ly irregular and fluctuating stream flow, that prevents the fair
and equitable administration of the decreed priorities of use of
the normal stream flow of the River at such times, but regardless
thereof, the claimants and owners of said stored waters are per-
mitted to take and divert from said River at the said points and
places of user thereof, an amount and quantity of water equal to
to -wit, ninety (9olk) percent of the amount and quantity of,waters
so released from said reservoirs free and clear of the claims of
older rights of priorities for direct irrigation, all of which
has imposed and threatens to continue to impose a heavy burden upon
said River and its tributary streams, and greatly depleting and
diminishing the normal amount and quantity of water flowing in
said River and its tributaries that would otherwise be available
for the use and benefit of said older and superior priorities of
right thereto, and have wrongfully, unjustly and unlswfully at-
tempted and are still so attempting by means of the "River Runs"
aforesaid, to compel this plaintiff company and other similarly
situated water users in said Mater Districts Nos. 11 and 12 to
suffer and bear the said burden thus imposed upon said River and
its tributary streams and to suffer and bear the entire loss of
water created and caused in the manner aforesaid,
5,.
That the said River and its tributary streams are and long
have been largely over - appropriated, and that the said defendant
water distributing officials by so attempting to supply the de-
ficiency caused 'by wrongfully and unlawfully permitting and allow-
ing the claimants and owners of the said reservoirs and the water
users to take and divert from said River free and clear from the
claims of superior and older priorities at the said points and
places of the user of said stored waters, large quantities of
water not furnished or supplied at said points and places of user
by the said "Reservoir Runs" hereinbefore mentioned, and the said
defendant water officials have been attempting and are still so
attempting 1py means of the "River Runs" aforesaid, to deprive this
plaintiff company and many other similarly situated users of
water for irrigation in dater Districts Nos. 11 and 12, of the
use and benefit of the waters of said River and its tributary
streams heretofore always held, used and enjoyed by it, and to
-9-