others were plaintiffs and Sanpete Water Users Association and others were defendants and that the State Engineer at this time has no jurisdiction to grant further extension of time to Sanpete Water Users Association in connection with its said application No. 9593. Wherefore, the undersigned protestant prays: 1. It be determined that the State engineer has no jurisdiction to consider or grant the extension of time requested by Sanpete Water Users Association. 2. In the event it is determined that the State Engineer does have jurisdiction to consider said application that the same be denied for the reason set forth in the foregoing protest. 3. In the event it is determined that the State Engineer does have jurisdiction to consider said application and in the event the State engineer finds unjustified delay or lack of diligence in prosecuting the works to completion and that the State Engineer, nevertheless, does not deny said application that the State engineer grant any extension only upon a condition that the priority of Application 9593 be reduced so that it will stand subsequent in time to the certificate granted upon Application No. 8989a. STATE OF UTAH, County of Carbon, 88: CARBON CANAL COMPANY, a corporation, By WILLIAM MARSING, its President. William Marsing, being first duly sworn on oath states; That he signed the foregoing protest on behalf of Carbon Canal Company, a corporation, pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors; that he has read the said protest and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. [s] WILLIAM MARSING. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of May 1963. My Commission expires: February 3, 1967. [s] MARION BEACCO, Notary Public. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR SANPETE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH CIVIL NO. 5242 CARBON CANAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PIONEER DITCH COMPANY No. 1, A CORPORATION, PIONEER WATER COMPANY No. 2, A CORPORATION, ALLRED DITCH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, WELLINGTON CANAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BRYNERHANSEN DITCH CO., A CORPORATION, BRYNER-PLOUTZ DITCH Co., SPRING GLEN CANAL COMPAny, a CorporaTION, O'BERTO DITCH COMPANY, PRICE CANAL COMPANY, PRICE RIVER WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, PRICE CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND HELPER CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND PRICE RIVER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFFs, v. SANPETE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, AND WAYNE D. CRIDDLE, STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF UTAH, DEFENDANTS SUMMONS The State of Utah to the above-named defendants: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon E. J. Skeen, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs, whose address is 522 Newhouse Building, Salt Lake City, Utah, an answer to the complaint within 20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail so to do, the judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in said complaint, which has been filed with the clerk of said court, and a copy of which is hereto annexed and herewith served upon you. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR SANPETE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH CIVIL NO. 5242 CARBON CANAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PIONEER DITCH COMPANY No. 1, A CORPORATION, PIONEER WATER COMPANY No. 2, A CORPORATION, ALLRED DITCH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, WELLINGTON CANAL COMPANY, a CorporATION, BRYNERHANSEN DITCH Co., A CORPORATION, BRYNER-PLOUTZ DITCH Co., SPRING GLEN CANAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, O'BERTO DITCH COMPANY, PRICE CANAL COMPANY, PRICE RIVER WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, PRICE CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND HELPER CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND PRICE RIVER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFFS, v. SANPETE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, AND WAYNE D. CRIDDLE, STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF UTAH, DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT Plaintiffs complain of the defendants and for cause thereof allege: 1. Defendant, Sanpete Water Users Association, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Utah. Defendant Wayne D. Criddle is the duly chosen, qualified, and acting State Engineer of the State of Utah. Plaintiffs, Carbon Canal Company, Pioneer Ditch Company No. 1, Pioneer Water Company No. 2, Allred Ditch Company, Wellington Canal Company, Bryner-Hansen Ditch Co., Spring Glen Canal Company, and Price River Water Users Association, are corporations organized under the laws of the State of Utah; and plaintiffs, Price City and Helper City, are municipal corporations located in Carbon County, Utah; and the plaintiff Price River Improvement District is an improvement district organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah. 2. That the plaintiffs and each of them are the owners of rights to the use of water of Price River. 3. Application No. 9593, which is now owned by the defendant, Sanpete Water Users Association, a corporation, was filed in the office of the State Engineer of Utah on September 11, 1924, for the appropriation of 15,000 acre-feet of water from Gooseberry Creek for irrigation of land in Sanpete Valley. Said application was originally rejected by the State Engineer and later, on appeal to the District Court of Sanpete County, was approved at the direction of the above-entitled court. That extensions of time for filing proof of appropriation and beneficial use of water have been granted by the State Engineer from the to time during the period from 1939 to 1958, inclusive. That on October 7, 1958, the State Engineer made a written memorandum decision granting an extension of time for making proof to March 31, 1961. An action to review this decision of the State Engineer was filed in the District Court of Sanpete County, No. 4825, and on or about the 10th day of August, 1959, the above-entitled court made and entered a judgment in said cause affirming the decision of the State Engineer and extending time for making proof of appropriation on said application No. 9593 for a period of 2 years from the date of the judgment, or in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court was taken, from the date of issuance of the remittitur on the final judgment of the Supreme Court. The said judgment further required the defendant, Sanpete Water Users Association, to organize a water conservancy district and take further action to show diligence in said matter and provided that, during the period of extension, the court would retain jurisdiction of the application and the matter of further extensions of time thereon. 4. That during the period of extension and while the above-entitled court retained jurisdiction of the said application, the defendant, Sanpete Water Users Association, made no report to the court regarding the compliance with the conditions of said judgment, and did not request of the court an extension of time for making proof. That by reason of the foregoing, the said application, No. 9593, lapsed, and thereby became void and of no further force or effect. Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for a judgment of this court holding and declaring that application No. 9593 has lapsed, is void, and has no further force or effect. Plaintiffs pray for general relief and for costs of this proceeding. Re In the matter of application No. 9593. THEODORE W. SNEED, Staff Member, Public Works Committee, NIELSEN, CONDER & HANSEN, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SNEED: I enclose herewith for inclusion in record in the above matter the memorandum decision of the State engineer granting an extension of time to the Sanpete Water Users Association to and including January 31, 1966. As far as I know this is the last information which we have to include in the record of the hearing. Respectfully yours, ARTHUR H. NIELSEN. BEFORE THE STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF UTAH IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NO. 9593, MEMORANDUM DECISION Application No. 9593 in the name of Sanpete Water Users Association, a corporation, seeks to appropriate and store 15,000 acre-feet of water from Gooseberry Creek, a tributary of the Price River, for use in the San Pitch River Valley, Sanpete County, Utah. The application was filed September 11, 1924, and after due advertisement, formal protest and hearing, was rejected on May 18, 1925, based upon the State engineer's findings of a lack of available water for appropriation. This rejection was the subject of an appeal to the district court and on February 11, 1939, the district court reversed the State engineer and ordered the application approved. In conformity with this decree the State engineer formally approved the application March 11, 1939. Requests for extension of time in which to submit proof were granted without objection until 1958, when a request for extension of time was protested by Carbon County interests and a hearing held in Manti, Utah. Following this hearing the State engineer granted an extension of time by memorandum decision dated October 7, 1958. This was the subject of an appeal to the district court which affirmed this decision, but with some specific requirements to be complied with by the applicant. These include the formation of a water conservancy district or other organization which could proceed with financing this project. The court also specifically reserved jurisdiction in the matter for a 2-year period. The case was subsequently appealed to the supreme court and the decision of the trial court was upheld. The State engineer, pursuant to the court's order, endorsed his record to show an extension of time on this filing for a 2-year period after final judgment. This period ended July 22, 1962. By affidavit received July 20, 1962, the applicant requested a further extension of time. This request was advertised and protested by the Carbon Canal Co. and the Price River Water Improvement District and a hearing held at Manti, Utah, May 24, 1963. After due consideration of all of the information presented at the hearing and in the written affidavits of protest and from our knowledge of the efforts of the applicant in the period since the last extension was affirmed by the supreme court, we have concluded that they have shown reasonable diligence. It is, therefore, ordered and the extension requested in connection with application No. 9593 is hereby granted to January 31, 1966. This decision is subject to the provisions of section 73-3-14, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, which provides for plenary review by the filing of a civil action in the appropriate district court within 60 days from date hereof. Dated this 20th day of June 1963. O HURBERT C. LAMBERT, 94. S. Congress, HEARING BEFORE A s. S SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 2573 A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERNATIONAL PASSAMAQUODDY AUGUST 12, 1964 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works LAW LIBRARY SEP 23 1964 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 36-941 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1964 101P26 |