My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06072
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06072
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:21:08 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:25:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8135.100
Description
Ditch Companies - Amity Mutual Irrigation Company
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
1/1/1969
Author
Amity Mutual
Title
Annual Report - 1968
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Annual Repor' For 1968 <br /> <br />It is anticipated a hearing will probably be held on this during the <br />summer. <br /> <br />Your Companj', along with others, entered the Bent County case wherein <br />the Game, Fish and Parks Department sought to change the location of <br />5,000 acre [eet of storage from Muddy Creek Reservoir (also known as <br />Setchfield) to the John Martin Reservoir. The late attorney (or the Ditch <br />Association, Phil Danielson, along with the various ditch attorneys, ap- <br />peared to contest same. <br /> <br />Pursuant to stipulaton entered into by all parties, the Court, on June <br />3, 1968 entered an Order permitting said change. However, we feel there <br />are ample safeguards built in the Decree to protect the Company. Further t <br />tIljs Decree, while allowing the change does not, and canno~ give the De- <br />partment any right to hold this water in John Martin, this being a matter <br />involving the Arkansas River Compact and the States and users concerned <br />therewith. <br /> <br />Pursuant to a 1967 Colorado Act referred to as a IIWater S'bJdy Bill" <br />public hearings have been held and various lfgislative proposals made con- <br />cerning the appropriations and administration of water in Colorado. These <br />pro.posals are lengthy and detailed and cannot be presented in capsule here, <br />however. spec:ific proposed changes presented to the legislature should be <br />carefulI,y examined by all concerned users. <br /> <br />Since our last meeting the much talked of "Fellhauer" case has been <br />decided by the Colorado Supreme Court. This case arose out of action by <br />the State Engineer in shutting down the well of Plaintiff pursuant to the <br />1965 underground water legislature. The real contest in this case, in m,Y <br />opinion, wa.s whether or not this legislation was constitutional, and the <br />Supreme Court decided it was. The Court did determine that the Engineer <br />did not in this caSe properly exercise his authority in his regulation and <br />set up guidelines for future actions of this type. I dare say we have not <br />seen the last of litigation arising out of this law. <br /> <br />We would like to expre ss our appreciation for the excellent coopera- <br />tion we have received during the past year from the Stockholders, Directors, <br />Officers and Employees of the Company. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />ALLOTT AND ROGERS, Attorneys, <br /> <br />By <br /> <br />Robert G. Rogers <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.