|
-. .
<br />(~' ~~, ~~~e.b~~a .C~ tP~~~~~ ~ ~ .
<br />i '~ ~ ~ - ~
<br />jt
<br />.: ~,~•.
<br />.. .. .. n~,.: is
<br />Section B . ~ , Tuesday,.June 27:,1978 ,,; , ~ Pueblo; ~olo.
<br />Lew V:~ ~~~~"~~ ,~:i ~ ~ 1: -Y
<br />`w.:
<br />. ,.~ .. ..~~~ .i~
<br />D of ~ne~~~{awaits ~-- stat~u~~~• •
<br />.- ,. ,
<br />..~v.
<br />By StarJoarnal, Chleitafa in'shadfag on :.._. the map." they are legally e~Mitled•". ;-; "` >
<br />Deaver $ureau In. 1975, Clarence Kuiper, •,stafe ~;::-The 'high court .reversed "the
<br />.engineer,: learned .that. Winden";~'P°rtion of.the decree which stittes, .
<br />DENVER - The Colorado Whittmore and a third defendant; - "The '~land;.upon whicti this ,
<br />supreme Court.,affirmed,..w part';Ebert L. Hawkins, were irrigating;;, prohibition shall operate are those -
<br />_n revers part on Monday a. their lands, which were within the , lands shown in shading on the .. .
<br />ewer court ruling which enjoined .'shaded area on the map, with well' .map." _ ;.
<br />rrigators from using well water water which was tributary to. the. IE took note of the tact that
<br />ributary to the Arkansas River on•.-:Arkansas RiVer..He obtained an •: • evidence at -the lower • court {rial
<br />:eclainland's. "injunction prohibiting them from .,indicated. that,::..from; the dine.
<br />The high court, notigg tha! status using the wells In questlon. , : Whittmore purchased certain land
<br />f some of the wells, is unclear;' The three defendants objected to "in 1946, it has been Irrigated solely t
<br />emended a portion.of the case to' 'the Injuni:tion'on grounds that'they i with well water and not with $ oth
<br />he lower court for an evidentiary :were not bound by the ;earlier ';'water.. Yet, apparently, this land
<br />:earin.g to determine which, if any, decree because they were. not 'i."was•.within the shaded area M the .
<br />ands o[ ,two . of the defendants, • Parties to the proceeding, they had.: map. ;:~;
<br />=eorge. Winden and F.E. Whitt= no'legal notice of the, proceeding, `i Winden also holds 30 seta; ,of '
<br />.lore, have nob been historically ,and the use of well water' was not land within the shaded area, p?Tt of
<br />~igated by water adjudicated. to involved in the case..:...: ,:.. ••• which had its' own well and no
<br />ioot6 SoothOrchard Grove Ditch. - Gobin declined to. rule±on, the'
<br />validity: of the legal arguments+:•Booth water., And this, too, is in-
<br />The complex legalcontroversy ,raised by the •defendants„ but: he , eluded .in the shaded area:; a~ is
<br />rose in the wake of the sale of pointed out that each ^,'of thef:otherlandleased by Winden.;
<br />.ooth Orchard Grove Ditch water defendants were shareholders in ',.. "It appears that there is a strong
<br />fights, subject to certain con- g~th Orchard et' the'time of `the' possibipity that there i9 a conflict In
<br />itions, to the Pueblo Board of .sale. of, the water, rights. tos,the;~;;the decree ;.. ," said the high
<br />later Works for ;4.5 millian`in' pueblo water board. court. "... It is evident from the
<br />372• And' fie noted each of diem testimony and from the decree
<br />Objeedons to an application ailed received a proprotionate share oi,rftself that the shaded areas'oT the ,
<br />afar in Water Division 2 0[ Pueblo the assets, • which consisted': map'were to embrace only leads
<br />!strict Court were resolved by primary o[ the funds received from ''historically irrigated ; by Baot6
<br />iutual a Bement of concerned - the sale of the water rights to "water We regard ' it as
<br />artier who entered into • Pueblo, with Haw "ns 'receiving.'inequitable•to enjoin persons in the
<br />lpluations, under which the ;100,000, Winde approximately position of .... Winden, ana
<br />!star Court heard evidence on . ;42,500 ., and'Whittmore about ,' Whittmore from using {ributary
<br />oral .15, 1972, and entered .-a,.`i17,500.: ,. "' .'..,well water. upon end': ant '
<br />age Gobin; then ,,held ..againsf;.the ,historically .,irrigated b~ ;Booth
<br />'The decree issued by Dlstriet. defendants on,.the harts that•:`one.;,.water." . ~ s = ; ~.
<br />edge William L. Gobin permittipg who acre is the frul~f a~.:0old..,. .•. ~.::,
<br />requested changes, provided jndgnr~i~nq~attetxards~; .Hawkins argued tha~ he'ha;; a ~ .
<br />is : ~ ~ -repudiate his a" m and takg ad-;swell on land not in the shaded-area, ' .
<br />`-"1 elandsListoricallylrrigated''vantageofi alidi ~^ T ' ~~And he claimed that he has he
<br />/use of water diverted under the 'TFte~igh 'court agreed':'~ith.' right to water his land within'~he
<br />•ater rights which are the subject:. Gobin's conclusions that the wells shaded area with water from this .
<br />' this'action shall be permanently from which the defendants puinped`~ well, or with waste water from
<br />'moved from agricultural .,water are tributary to. ,,the,..orrgatioaotlandoutsidetheshaded
<br />rlgatlon by means of water with- .Arkansas River. And . thst,t the. ; area [rorn water from this.well...
<br />Sawa from the Arkansas River, ' "continued use of tributary wells to But the Supreme Court disagreed
<br />s tributaries or underground irrigate fends historically irrigated: 'with Hawkins' argument a1M~q af-
<br />star tributary thereto ... Tbe, by the Booth Orchard Grove Ditch: ;firmed the Snjunc4on against7tinl
<br />.nds upon which this prohibition will deprive appropriators on the : after finding that the well spa .
<br />,~.arUf ~op~erate are thosFF lands shown Arkansas River of water to which :tributary to the Arkansas River.Gl,. •,
<br />~'C",i'p~fh ~2U~z~E6 Su~~~C~,S
<br />
|