Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the real property described 1n paragraph 3 of these findings, <br />and about August 25, 1972, app11cants began to develop a plan to <br />construct a pipe11ne from their property to commun1ties lying <br />along Founta1n Creek, outs1de the natural drainage of L1ttle <br />Horse Creek and. Steel Fork of L1ttle Horse Creek. In furtherance <br />of that plan, app11cants have entered into negotiations with the <br />Secur1ty Water D1strict, the Wide field Homes Water Company, the <br />Un1ted States Department of Defense and others calling for an <br />annual de11very of approximately 2200 acre feet of:water per year, <br />and propose to enter into such other contracts as they believe may be <br />supplied from the wells which are the subject matter of this <br />proceeding (other than Well No.6). In the furtr.erance of this <br />project, applicants, with the year immediately preceding the <br />trial, have expended'in excess of $50,000 in equipment, and legal <br />and engineering fees. Mr. Pre1sser testified that the proposed <br />pipe11ne would cost about $1,400,000 and that he was waiting only <br />for his conditional decree to commence const~uct1on. The uses to <br />which the water so transported through the proposed pipeline .ill <br />~e put are irrigation, municipal, commercial, industrial, recrea- <br />tional and other benef1c1al purposes. From the pleadings and the <br />ev1.dence, appl1cants are ent1t1ed' to a conditional decree for the <br />use of water from wells 1-5 and 7-15 for the quantities set out <br />1n paragraph 7 of these f1nd1ngs, with an adjudication date of <br />August 25, 1972. <br /> <br />13. The position of all of the ohjectors is the same. <br />It may be summarized by saying that they claim there 1s no water <br />ava11able for appropr1ation, and that, therefore, nO decree <br />should be granted to applicants for the reason that any wate~ <br />,.,r1thdrawn by applicants reduces the. aJilount available for tr.e::-- <br />senior decrees and Hill cause injury to them. The only real <br />conflict in the evidence goes to the availability of wate~. <br /> <br />14. There is no d~~te from the evidence that Lit.t.le <br />