WSPC02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001043 SUIT for injunction, brought by the Handy Ditoh Company against the Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Company and ~vo public offioials, Hinderlider, state engineer of the state of Colorado. and Kelly, a water commissioner, to restrain the offioial defendants from interfering with plaintiff's use of the waters of the Dig Thompson river, and to enjoin the oorporation defendant from storing water when plaintiff needs it for immediate use or temporary storage fer later use. After numerous motions, deJlIUrrers, amendments, and rulings ~lereon, plaintiff filed a second wnended complaint and amend- ments thereto, to whioh the defendants demurred on several grounds. The oourt sustained on the first ground of de=rer. that a oause of action was not stated. Plaintiff eleoted to stand on its second amended oomplain' as amended; the same was dismissed at plaintiff's costs, and it brings the case here for review. Vie shall omit plaintiff's formal allegations. and briefly state its contentions as we understand them. It owns the right to use 192.43 oubic feet of water per second of time of the waters of the Dig Thompson river, decreed for direot irrigation. It awns also five large storage reservoirs, teJdng water fi'om the same stream, but to which no priorities have been awarded. It supplies Water to its stockholders for the irrigation of about 12,000 acres of land. It seeks through injunctive relief to aooomplish two things, first. to keep its priority to the flow of the stream for direct irrigation, and second, to use the water so economically that it will be permitted to "temporarily impound" mere water for use later in the season, all under and by virtue of its decree for direot irrigation. Plaintiff claims that it has followed this practice for the past forty years. 1. It: the above is permitted. it will affect the defendant cOl1lpany in this Way. the latter OVIl'lS certain reservoirs which also get their water supply from the same Big Thompson river, and to which reservoirs priorities have been decreed. Plaintiff's decrees for direct irrigation are senior, in point of time, to defendant oompany's reservoir priorities. If plain-i;iff "ins cn its thoory, its direct flow rights will serve for "temporary storage" rights. as well as for the direct flow of the stream, and thus cut out defendant company from its decreed reservoir rights in times of scarci-bJ of water supply. (1) Plaintiff's theory is untenable. The statute reoognizes two olasses of appropriations for irrigation, one for ditches diverting water directly from the stream, and one for the storage of water. to be used subsequently. Holbrook Irrigation District v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co" a4 Colo. 174, 191, 269 Pac. 5741 Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Co. v. Huppe, 60 Colo. 535, 155 Pac. 386; New Loveland & Greeley 1rr. <:0 Land Co. v. Cons. Home Supply Ditch Co., 27 Colo. 525, 62 Pac. 366, $2 L.R.1\,. 266. (2,3,4) It is difficult to understa,11_d how the words "temporary im- pound," as applied to the storal>e of Water in a reservoir to be used later for agricultural purposes, add anything to the nomenclature of the leYt of water. "Temporary" llle!l.IlS lasting for a time only; it is opposed to per- manent, but all water impounded in any storage reservoir, is to be put there only temporarily; otherwise its capture fi'om the stream must of nece- ssity defeat the purpose of the law of beneficial user. The right to the use of water, vthether by direct flov, or through storage reservoirs, -2-