Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Annual Report For 1966 <br /> <br />performed. For some time we have recognized that the growth oC trees <br />and deposit of sediment would have to be removed if we were to maintain <br />our rated capacity. The larger drag line purchased this year is making <br />the needed renovation possible. Several miles have been restored west of <br />May ValleJ'. This work has continued throughout most or the winter. <br /> <br />During the past summer a loan was obtained from the Wichita Bank <br />of Cooperathres. With the purchase of the larger dragline and other <br />equipment it was considered advisable to obtain this loan which is re- <br />payable over a period of j'ears. It has been several years since we have <br />borrowed from this source. Local Banks have accomodated your Company <br />for current needs and this sen-ice is greatly appreciated. <br /> <br />Article V F of the Arkansas River Compact provides tilat ditches in <br />District #67 below John Martin Reservoir shall divide releases from <br />Colorado in accordance with Mutual agreements which in the past have <br />been based on the Historical diversion prior to the John Martin Dam. <br /> <br />The Buffalo Canal gave notice tilat they wished to revise percentage <br />permitted their ditch. After several meetings a new agreement was made <br />and agreed to by all ditches below the John Martin Dam. If the full release <br />permitted of Colorado is being made, tile Amity Canal would receive 49.5% <br />of water permitted Colorado instead of 50.2% in the previous arrangement. <br />But this change only applies when Colorado is receiving all the water <br />tl1ey are permitted under the Compact. The Lamar Canal and tile Manvel <br />Canal made similar concessions. <br /> <br />In 1964 the Amity joined with a number of other ditches on tlJe river <br />in a petition to the Colorado State Engineer to take jurisdiction over <br />the pumping of ground water in close proximity to the river. Because <br />certain ditches were pumping water in addition to their early priorities, <br />it was reasoned. if the practice could not be stopped, it would be necessary <br />for other appropriators on the river to follow the same practice. A <br />Denver water attorney, Glen Saunders. was engaged to present this matter <br />to the State Engineer and press for a ruling. <br /> <br />A hearing was held in Denver b,y the State Engineer and he ruled that <br />there was a conflict with the W1derground water law of 1957, and he refused <br />to take jurisdiction. <br /> <br />in our 1965 report we cited the new law that was passed by the <br />legislature giving the State Engineer specific autilority over wells that might <br />be pwnping water from tileaUuvium depositoCa natural stream. State water <br />officials indicated they would tahe a['tion if necessary. <br /> <br />During the growing season this year water was short in the Arkansas <br />valley up-stream and a number of wells were ordered to cease pwnping. <br /> <br />Une pumper,Mr. Roger Fellhauer near Fowler.refused to shutofC his <br />pump and the State Engineer through Court action .secured first a temporary <br />injWlction and after a trial in the District Court in Pueblo, lasting several <br />days. a permanent injunction. It is expected that this decision will be <br />appealed to the Supreme Court early this year. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />