|
<br />lR2
<br />
<br />GROUND-WATER TECHNOLOGY
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />e. It was not the purpose of the study to determine whether or not the
<br />plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant's acts.
<br />f. Periodic measurements along Fountain Creek indicate that there was
<br />no measurable loss in streamflow as a result of pumping in the area.
<br />However, the seepage from the aquifer to the stream undoubtedly was
<br />reduced somewhat insects. 24and25, T. 15. S.. R. 66 W.. (Fig. 2). when
<br />the cone of depression, caused by pumping, migrated downgradient into
<br />this area.
<br />
<br />o
<br />2
<br />o
<br />2
<br />o
<br />2
<br />4
<br />" .
<br />~
<br />< 8
<br />,;
<br />~IO
<br />.
<br />"5 12
<br />0;14
<br />~ 0
<br />" 2
<br />"
<br />~ 4
<br />.
<br />8
<br />10
<br />12
<br />
<br />(a) I I , I I , , , , , I , ,
<br /> ! , , , ,
<br />(b) I I I I ; , , , , I I , ,
<br /> "I
<br /> '-
<br /> "
<br /> ...... .
<br /> -- -
<br /> "/
<br />(e) .
<br /> I I I
<br /> . . I I
<br /> ~ Computed curve
<br /> ""... ..
<br /> > ........
<br /> OMeNed change _ e-
<br /> .
<br /> ...... .
<br /> :--:::L: . . . . ...-
<br /> . II .
<br />Cd) I 1 I , /
<br />
<br />J F M A M j J
<br />1954
<br />
<br />A SON
<br />
<br />D I J
<br />
<br />F M
<br />
<br />A M j )
<br />1955
<br />
<br />A SON D
<br />
<br />14
<br />
<br />FIG. 5.-EFFECTS OF PUMPING O=' THE WATEH LEVEL AT PLAINTIFF'S WELL
<br />
<br />The district court, after examination of the hydrologic exhibits, decreed
<br />that the defendants 10 ". . .are hereby jointly and severally enjoined and re-
<br />strained from diverting water from any and all wells, . . .having an appro-
<br />priation date subsequent to 1931, for and during the irrigation season, to-wit:
<br />From the first day of April, 1960, to the first day of October, 1960, and for
<br />a like period in each and every year thereafter, from that source of water de-
<br />scribed herein and referred to as 'the aquifer' . . ."
<br />The rule, "first in time, first in right," was upheld. However, under this
<br />injunction only the defendant continues to suffer while other ground-water
<br />users, some of whom are junior to the defendant, may continue to \\'ithdraw
<br />water from the aquifer.
<br />10 Decision of the Distl'ict Court, Bender \"l'rsus City of Colorado Springs, et al.. by
<br />Honorable John \1. :-.teiklc, Judgc, Dbt. Court records, Colorado Springs, Colo., C<ise
<br />33, 'i5~, :'>l:t.rch ~2, 1960,
<br />
|