| OCR Text |
Show ah Lake Drainage District Water Suit Filed 0 Companies and Irrigator In Utah County and Provo ; River Basin Involved rights and title be adjudged and decreed de-creed to be prior andsuperior to any " right or rights of -any defendant to the use of the water initiated subsequent sub-sequent to the date when the rights of such plaintiff were initiated. E. That the right or rights of each defendant to divert or use water wa-ter from the lake or tributaries be adjudged and determined. F. That all orders and injunctions 't action to adjudicate the t0f every individual, corpora-Dd corpora-Dd association asserting any to the waters of Utah lake or tributary of Utah lake is into in-to an action filed in Third t court last Thursday, by Salt jity and Utah and Salt Lake ay, ' East Jordan Irrigation ny' South Jordan Canal com-SQtknd com-SQtknd North Jordan Irrigation necessary to a full exercise and enjoyment en-joyment by each party to the suit of every right decreed to such party be made and entered. Salt Lake City claims the right to 150 second feet of water from Utah lake by virtue of an appropriation made in 1864. The Utah and Salt Lake Canal company claims 246 second sec-ond feet under an 1863 appropriation, appropria-tion, East Jordan Irrigation company, com-pany, 170 second feet under an 1878 appropriation; South Jordan Canal company," 142 second feet, under an 1863 appropriation, and North Jordan Jor-dan Irrigation company, 120 second feet under an 1853 appropriation. The amounts of water, the com- , plaint sets forth, are for use during i the irrigation season, from April 15 ! to October 15. Each plaintiff also claims the right to use of a constant con-stant flow of water from Utah lake through Jordan river during the other part of the year of 10 second feet of water for domestic and culinary culi-nary uses. Each claims the right to use the lake as an impounding reservoir, reser-voir, a right exercised for more than 50 years. Each sets forth allegations of beneficial use of the water. The complaint ' points out that V . action Is said to be the most l01tf 0 record in Utah involv-rter involv-rter rights appraised at more 50,000,000 and concerning 3000 ual and corporate defendants ig rights in the lake waters waters of the lake's tribu- ,-ieof Suitr- i purpose of the suit was made , atement issued coincidentally 5 , .fnsel for the plaintiffs, as f ol- l indicated in the complaint, the e of this suit is to obtain an cation of the rights of every -rlual, corporation and associa-Kltserting associa-Kltserting any claim to the wat-1 wat-1 Utah lake or of any tribu-j tribu-j Utah lake. N plaintiffs fully appreciate 1 aoyance and expense incident 1 iajor water suit of this type, A pecially in view of drouth I! ' ons during 'and since the year I 'I ith the possibility of a con-l con-l water shortage, they feel that 1 jroative is open to them other I he prosecution of a suit that ,1 fthoritatively determine all K LmH afford a. uromnt and ef- during occasional years the water supply has been insufficient to meet all requirements. It calls attention to the "unpreceedented drouth" of 1934 and 1935, and alleges that the amount of water available from the lake and tributariies is now far below be-low normal. , JJ remedy when rights of senior fi&Jriators are violated and water ' h they are entitled is wrong- verted by junior appropria- re Cob' jlotLe are many old water rights T1T various tributaries of Utah id plaintiffs believe that the n ition of this suit is as 'vital to Iners of those rights as it is atiffs. iommencing this action there 1 jurpose to take from 'any Oit water to the use of which atitled, but when there is in-bt in-bt water for all, the senior of the older appropriate fe recognized. j hoped and ant'cipated lms of a large nroportiTr V. Wter users may be adjusted out City Kt by stipulation and every ef -home oi l be bent toward limiting the ;. ! controversy within as nar-3its nar-3its as possible." ts Made lomnlaint asks: . "Because of said drouth," the complaint com-plaint continues, .""and because of the wrongful and unlawful diversions diver-sions of water by defendants from tributaries of said lake, the water in said lake is now andxthroughout the irrigation season, of 1936 will remain greatly below its normal level, and unless said wrongful and unlawful diversions are discontinued there will not be sufficient water available in said lake to satisfy the rights or necessities of plaintiffs during the present irrigation season." It is contended that "only a trivial number of defendants own rights, to the use of water from Utah lake or its tributaries which are not junior and inferior tothe rights of these plaintiffs." . "Notwithstanding tne iacus u-leged," u-leged," the complaint sets forth, "many thousands of acre feet ol water to the use of which plaintiffs were and are entitled, were, during 1934 and 1935.' wrongfully and un- ijiliat the defendants be re- 0 uto set forth what, if any, .itle or interest is claimed by T IP 1 'lle w-aters e lake or utaries, and the nature, ex- d origin of the claimed right. 1I0frhat an order be made au" ig and directing the service toons by publication upon all Pints who cannot be found or with summons within the ad upon all persons unknown g any right to use or any .;ltle, estate or interest in or 'pS W'On the water or any portion sS water of Utah lake , or its 5ihat an order be made re-""'' re-""'' ieach defendant to appear in 't a date specified., and show P 0lyi e court should " not th assume jurisdiction and rfll0Ver tlle ters of the lake LI I II ) tributaries and appoint one LA i persons for the purpose of sing the diversion and' dis-rcnTTR"n dis-rcnTTR"n of the waters and carrying JJuV ih orders and diirections as 22. Issued by the court pending determination, i j-hy a restraining order should 1 ffla. issued enjoining him from in the practice of winter T Vile lnn lawfully diverted by defendants claiming water rights on said tributaries, tribu-taries, and said .diversions have been continued by. said defendants. "Despite said drouth and scarcity of water, it was and is a common practice of defendants claiming water wa-ter rights on said tributaries, especially espe-cially during the period of high water, wa-ter, to divert therefrom and spread upon "their lands greatly . excessive and unnecessary amounts of water and large quantities were thus wasted." - Local Companies Local irrigation company officials have not as yet been served with summons but 'are trying to anticipate antici-pate the proceedure that is to be followed and are preparing to secure legal representation to protect their interests. When the suit comes Utah county interests are hoping that a minimum minim-um low level for the lake can be established when Salt Lake county water users will have to stop drawing draw-ing water from this natural lake. liy any water impounded by Pendant should not be held Lation ferted during the irrigation .JeB' 111 sucn a manner as the 3P0U lay later order. 'hy an order should not be Ixing a certain day at speci-jjjfj. speci-jjjfj. rvals when the court shall ier id determine any matters af-the af-the supervision, control, dis-lt)(l"n dis-lt)(l"n or diversion of the waters llltlake a-nd its tributaries pend- al decree, and make such (it)' sutary orders as may be iy and proper, without the ty of serving notice of hear-n hear-n any of the parties to this That the rights and title of laintifl to the use of water he lae and tributaries be de- wd and quieted and that the |
