HomeMy WebLinkAbout961401.tiff Donald (F. fnriylrt
SUITE 431 r. r
2888 BLUFF STREET
BOULDER, COLORADO 80301
(303)4474664
July 23, 1996
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th St.
Third Floor
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the letter from Arnold C. Wegher,
Attorney-At-Law to all Newell Lake Property Owners.
The land of Robert and Mary Ramsey presently being considered as open
space by the commissioners is effected by this court ruling.
The commissioners should be prepared to abide by the boundaries as
shown in the letter with any resulting liabilities and/or enforcement
problems.
Ve truly yours,
Donald F. Enright
DFE/ep
Enc.
cc: Arnold C. Wegher
eUL
�`„I ilprA
)4 1 961401
n
WEGHER & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2450 FIRST INTERSTATE TOWER SOUTH
621 17TH STREET
ARNOLD C. WEGHER DENVER, COLORADO 80293 AREA CODE 303
MARIE H. LOWE 292.9000
DARBY N. MOSES October 5, 1992 FAX: 292.5445
CERTIFIED MAIL, R.R.R.
Dale and Virgie Kennedy Robert J. Workman
21949 Weld County Rd. 3 21167 Weld County Rd. 3
Berthoud, Co. 80513 Berthoud, Co. 80513
Ms. Heidi Lutz Mr. Jeff Schubert
610 Weld County Rd. 46 538 Weld County Rd. 46
Berthoud, Co. 80513 Berthoud, Co. 80513
Mr. and Mrs. David Hart Ms. Carolyn S. Jones
508 Weld County Rd. 46 7345 West Maple Drive
Berthoud Co. 80513 Lakewood, Co. 80226
Robert and Mary Ramsey Mr. Phil R. Pennock, Jr.
8609 Garland Ct. 329 East Hiway 56
Arvada, Co. 80005 Berthoud, Co. 80513
Gerald and Susan McGovern Mr. Wilbert Koolstra
489 East Highway 56 0031 E. Highway 56
Berthoud, Co. 80513 Berthoud, Co. 80513
Mr. Gale R. Kennedy D. Bradford
V&G Cattle Co. 9800 N. 119th St.
Terry Kennedy Longmont, Co. 80513
672 Weld County Rd. 46
Berthoud, Co. 80513
Mr. Philip R. Pennock, Jr. , Mr. Paul B. Davis
President, Newell Lake 21297 Weld County Rd. 3
Drainage District Berthoud, Co. 80513
329 E. Hiway 56
Berthoud, Co. 80513
Dear Newell Lake Property Owners:
I represent Donald and Agnes Enright, William and Dorothy Forrest,
and Joseph and Virginia Scheib. They have asked that I write to
you concerning the outcome of certain litigation between them and
Mr. and Mrs. David Hart. The litigation involved the question of
the right to control and regulate the use of the surface and the
air space on and above the waters of Newell Lake for boating and
other water sports.
Some present and prior property owners and real estate agents have
apparently been under the erroneous impression that any Newell
Lake property owner could use the entire surface of the lake and
the air space above it as long as the landowner had legal access to
the lakeshore. This view may have been influenced by a 1965
agreement between the then Newell Lake property owners and Newell
Lake Drainage District. That agreement granted the Drainage
District the right to store water in Newell Lake to an approximate
elevation of 4945 feet. All other rights were retained by the
property owners.
Strong differences of opinion about these rights of use, control
and regulation of the waters of the lake existed. Concerns arose
about responsibility for water sport safety and the liability of
the landowner who uses or consents to let third parties use the
entire surface of the lake. These differences of opinion heated up
and eventually resulted in some very distasteful confrontations and
threats of physical harm. Police, who were contacted by both
sides, failed to take a position.
Finally, my clients decided to seek a judicial determination of the
property owners' rights. They wanted a court decision which
spelled out the law in a way and which would finally, and once and
for all, set to rest the previously mentioned problems. In
bringing the lawsuit my clients made the up-front decision to carry
it through the Colorado Supreme Court, if necessary, and committed
to pay the required costs.
The lawsuit was filed on August 12 , 1991 and proceeded in a
sensible and reasonable manner. I believe that the lawyers on both
sides were competent and capable and briefed the matter well. The
witnesses who were deposed were, for the most part, straight-
forward. The operative evidence and facts were stipulated by both
sides and therefore were not in dispute.
The trial was set for September 18 , 1992 before the District Court
in Greeley. Because the facts and operative evidence were not in
dispute, the Court needed only to apply the Colorado law to those
agreed facts and evidence and, therefore, decided the matter by
summary judgment. The decision, signed and handed down on
September 4 , 1992 , was in favor of my clients. Further, because
the Court's order was ultimately agreed to by both sides, any
prospect of appeal was eliminated.
In its order the District Court found that landowners own the
airspace over their land from the surface of the water upward. The
Court further decided that a person who enters upon the surface of
the lake and into this airspace without prior consent of the
landowner will be considered a trespasser. I am enclosing a copy of
that order.
I am also enclosing a copy of a map of Newell Lake on which the
boundary lines of property owned by my clients (as well as others)
are set forth. You are advised that these property lines were
established by recent survey and are marked on the property itself
by easily visible marine buoys installed under the supervision of
a surveyor. Your adherence to these boundary lines, as required by
the law, will be greatly appreciated by my clients.
Very truly yours,
c
Arnold C. Wegher
W/b
i
FILED IN
tACT COURT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORA �
C v ' o
COLA,
STIPULATION
DONALD F. ENRIGHT, AGNES T. ENRIGHT,JOSEPH J. SCHEIB, VIRGINIA A.
SCHEIB,WILLIAM D. FORREST and DOROTHY FORREST,
Petitioners
vs.
DAVID HART; ELAINE M. HART; DENNIS KOOLSTRA; C. MARK MARSHALL; TONY
VIENNA; MICHAEL WESTBROOK; JOHN DOES 2 THROUGH 6; MARCIA
WESTBROOK; and JANE DOE 2 through 6,
Respondents.
COME NOW the parties (excluding Tony Vienna who is not
included in the term "Respondents" as used herein) , by their
respective counsel of record, and state:
Recital%
Various disputes have arisen among the parties regarding and
arising from the use of the surface waters and the air space above
the waters of Newell Lake; and
The Second Amended Petition and the Counterclaim herein
request this Court to declare and determine the rights of the
various parties and to grant additional relief; and
On May 22, 1992, this Court entered its Interim Order re Use
of Water ("Order") ; and
On August 20, 1992, Petitioners filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment; and
The parties have reached an agreement in principle and desire
to settle their disputes and dispose, of said Motion for Summary
Judgment, subject to the approval of this Court, on the terms set
forth below.
The parties, therefore, STIPULATE AND AGREE:
1. The facts relating to this dispute are as set forth in
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
2. The parties, understanding of the law pertinent to the
subject dispute is as appears in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Decree attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 . Judgment may enter as is set forth in the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree attached hereto as Exhibit A.
WEGHER & ASSOCIATES
By
Arnold C. Wegh 8
621 17th St. , No. 2300
Denver, Co. 80293
303 292 9000
ATTO EY FOR PETITIONERS
726
lliam Ka
200 East h St. , Ste 318
Loveland, Co. 80537
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 91 CV 660 Courtroom III
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
DONALD F. ENRIGHT, AGNES T. ENRIGHT,JOSEPH J. SCHEIB, VIRGINIA A.
SCHEIB,WILLIAM D. FORREST and DOROTHY FORREST,
Petitioners
vs.
DAVID HART; ELAINE M. HART; DENNIS KOOLSTRA; C. MARK MARSHALL; TONY
VIENNA; MICHAEL WESTBROOK; JOHN DOES 2 THROUGH 6; MARCIA
WESTBROOK; and JANE DOE 2 through 6,
Respondents.
THIS MATTER coming on for the disposition of Petitioners'
Motion for Summary Judgment and upon the Stipulation of the parties
for disposition of Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, and
the Court having reviewed such Stipulation and the memoranda of
authority heretofore filed by the parties, FINDS:
JINDINGS OF FACT
1. Newell Lake is a body of water, which is not fed by any
stream and which is situate in Section 18, Township 4 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
2. The Newell Lake Drainage DiStrict Agreement dated August
26, 1965 ("Agreement") , sets forth the rights of various parties
and is pertinent to the within dispute in, among other, the
following particulars:
2 . 1. Paragraph II(B) thereof acknowledges that Newell
Lake Drainage District or its successors (which do not include any
party hereto) owns all right, title and interest in the water
contained in Newell Lake subject to a limitation of the right to
draw the water only to the elevation of 4945 feet. A true copy of
said Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 .2. The Agreement further acknowledges that ownership,
control and use of the surface rights of Newell Lake are vested in
persons who own property which abuts and underlies said Lake.
3. Petitioners, collectively, own approximately 116.41 acres
1
of real property underlying Newell Lake ("Petitioners, Property") .
4. The map attached hereto as Exhibit B accurately reflects
the extent and boundaries of Petitioners' real property which
underlies the water of Newell Lake as determined on July , 1992 by
a survey conducted by Ronald Adams, registered professional
surveyor, pursuant to the Order of this Court.
5. For some considerable time prior to commencing this
action, Petitioners repeatedly requested and demanded that
Respondents and other non-owners refrain and desist from coming
upon the surface waters and the air space lying above of the
surface waters of Newell Lake which lie above Petitioners'
Property, that they leave such surface_ waters and that they not
return.
6. For some considerable time prior to commencing this
action, Petitioners maintained home-fashioned buoys on the surface
of Newell Lake to demarcate those waters which Petitioners believed
laid over their Property.
7. Pursuant to the Order of this Court, on approximately
August 1, 1992, Petitioners caused regulation-type marine buoys to
be installed on the surface of Newell Lake to demarcate those
waters which, according to Exhibit B hereto, lie over Petitioners'
Property.
8. Respondents Hart own approximately 2.4 acres of real
property underlying Newell Lake.
9. Prior to the date hereof, Respondents Hart believed that
pursuant to the Agreement they, as owners of property underlying
Newell Lake, were entitled to use the entire surface of said lake
without regard to ownership or boundary lines of property
underlying the water.
10. Prior to the commencement of this action and from time to
time during its pendency, Respondents Hart, with full knowledge of
Petitioners' request and demand as set forth in paragraph 5
hereof, from time to time invited persons, including the other
named Respondents, who own no land abutting or underlying Newell
Lake to use the surface waters thereof.. During said time
Respondents Hart, with full knowledge Aforesaid, from time to time
also acquiesced in the repeated use of the surface waters and air
space above such waters by non-owners, including the other named
Respondents.
11. Respondents Hart have from time to time published to such
non-owners, including the other named, Respondents, the Harts'
belief that the Harts and such non-owner users were entitled to use
the entire surface of said lake without regard to ownership or
boundary lines of property underlying the water.
2
12. Prior to the commencement of this action and during the
pendency thereof, persons (including Respondents Koolstra, Marshall
and Westbrook) with full knowledge as aforesaid, have entered upon
the surface of the water of Newell Lake, which was demarcated as
aforesaid, and the air space above said water lying above
Petitioners' Property.
13. On July 7, 1991, the Respondents, other than Respondents
Hart, with full knowledge of Petitioners' requests aforesaid,
entered upon the surface of the water, which was demarcated as
aforesaid, and the air space above said water which lay above
Petitioner's Property.
14. on July 7, 1991, a dispute regarding the use of the
surface water of Newell Lake arose between Petitioner Donald F.
Enright on the one hand and Respondents other than Respondents
Hart. .
15. During the occurrence described in paragraph 14 hereof,
an invitee of Respondents Hart threatened Petitioner Donald F.
Enright with bodily harm.
16. During the occurrence described in paragraph 14 hereof,
Petitioner Donald F. Enright was subjected to degrading,
humiliating, foul and defamatory insults, accusations and false
remarks by some one or more of the named Respondents, except the
Respondents Hart.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Colorado law provides for private ownership of lands under
lakes and streams. Article 16, Section 5 of the Colorado
Constitution provides that land underlying non-navigable streams is
subject to private ownership. Lake Newell is non-navigable under
the test prescribed in United States v. Holt State Bari)(, 70 L.Ed.
455 (U.S. 1926) and Stockman v. Leddy, 129 P. 220 (Colo. 1912) .
In 'people v. Emmert. 597 P.2d 1025 (Colo. 1979) , a criminal
trespass case dealing with non-navigable waters, the Colorado
Supreme Court supported the common law concept that he who owns the
surface has an exclusive right to everything above. C.R.S. 41-1-107
sets forth that same proposition. . The Colorado Constitution was
historically. concerned with appropr4ation of water but did not
intend to subvert common law ' rigbts of landowners that land
underlying non-navigable streams is subject to private ownership of
proprietors of adjoining lands, pergen Ditch and Reservoir Co. v.
Barnes, 683 P.2d 365 (Colo. App. 1984) ; people v. Emmert. supra;
More v. Johnson, 568 P.2d 437 (Colo. 1977) ; )iartman v. Tresise, 84
P. 685 (Colo. 1905) ; and $anion v. Hobson. 51 P. 433 (Colo. 1897) .
In constructing the nature of ownership interest by a non-
3
owner reservoir company in lands under the waters in a reservoir,
the Colorado Supreme Court in Hutson v. Agricultural Ditch 4
Reservoir
723
Reservoir Company had an easement.lo 1986) , concluded
Qu oting from the American Law
of Property, the Court stated
. .when a conveyance creates the right to use certain
land but the conveyance is not sufficiently precise to
create a possessory interest, the. interest created, if
one is created, is necessarily an easement.
C.R.s. 41-1-107 codifies Article 16, Section 5 of the Colorado
constitution regarding the ownership of air space as follows: "The
ownership of space above the lands and waters of this state is
declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath,
subject to the right of flight of aircraft. " C.R.S. 38-32-101
authorizes creation of privately owned estates above the ground in
persons other than the owners of the underlying ground. C.R.S. 38-
32-102 provides that above-the-ground estates are identical to
estates in land; and C.R.B. 38-32-104 declares that all Colorado
statutes which pertain to interests in land apply with equal force
to estates above the surface.
Article III (A) of the Newell Lake Drainage District Agreement
dated August 26, 1965 (Exhibit A to the parties' Stipulation)
provides that: [Title ownership, control and use of the surface
rights of Newell Lake shall remain in the Land Owners" subject to
the right of district employees to enter on adjoining land to
maintain the lake and drainage system.
The court, therefore, concludes as a matter of law that
Petitioners possess the exclusive rights to own and control the
surface of the water of Newell Lake, which lies above their real
property and the air space above those waters. The Court further
concludes that Respondents Hart possess the identical rights with
respect to the property which they own which underlies the water of
Newell Lake.
Trespass is the unlawful entering or remaining in or upon
premises. 1973 C.R.S. 18-4-504. Real property is among the
specific items included in the definition of "premises" which
appears at 1973 C.R.S. 18-4-504.5. All statutes which apply to
real property apply with equal force to estates above the surface
(C.R.S. 38-32-104) .
Based on the common law theory that "land" extends
indefinitely upward as well as downward, , the orthodox common law
rule is that any intrusion on, beneath or above the land of another
amounts to trespass. people v. Emmert, 75 hma Jur. S 13;
Restatement (Secondl of Torts 159. Shooting across the land of
another, thrusting one's arm across the boundary line and extending
wire across the land of another all have been held to constitute
4
trespass. People v. Emmert, supra. Whittaker v. Stanavich, 111
N.W. 295 (Minn. ) ; }Iannalson v. Session, 90 N.W. 93 (Iowa) ; and
Sutler v. Frontier Telephone Co. , 79 N.E. 716.
Colorado law provides that any person who aids, abets,
encourages or authorizes another in the commission of the trespass,
even though he is not personally present when it occurs, is liable
equally with him who commits it. China v. Reinicker, 6 L.Ed. 474.
In Miller v. Carnation Co. , 516 P.2d 661 (Colo. App. 1973) , the
Colorado Court of Appeals held that one who sets in motion a force
that in the usual course of events will damage the property of
another is guilty of trespass.
Recreational nature of an activity does not exempt it from
trespass. In people v. Emmert, supra., the Colorado Supreme Court
determined that recreational activities were not exempt from the
trespass law. In that case, the Ritschard Cattle Company owned
land on both sides of a non-navigable section of the Colorado
River. None of the Respondents had asked for or received
permission to raft down this section of the river and, in fact, two
of them had previously been warned to discontinue rafting on the
property. On the day in question, the owner learned that the
previously warned Respondents were again rafting on the river. He
caused a barbed wire to be strung from bank to bank about 10 inches
above the surface. When the Respondents approached the wire, the
owner told them they were trespassing. They denied this and
floated their raft under the barbed wire. They and others were
subsequently arrested and convicted of third degree criminal
trespass. The Respondents asserted that the trespass law should be
broadened in recognition of the recreational nature of their
rafting activity. In response the Colorado Supreme Court said:
We do,not feel constrained to follow the trend away from
the coupling of bed title with the right of public
recreational use of surface waters as urged by
defendants., We recognize the various rationales employed
by courts to allow public recreational use of water
overlying privately owned beds, j,,,.S. , . . . (3) the
creation of a public trust based on usability, thereby
establishing only a limited private usufructuary right;
and (4) state constitutional basis for state ownership.
We consider the common law rule of more force and effect,
especially given its lona standing recognition in this
state. (citation omitted) . As noted in Smith v People,
120 Colo. 39, 206 P.2d 826 (1949) : °If a change in a
long established judicial precedent is desirable, it is
a legislative and not a judicial function to make any
needed change.° We specifically note that it is within
the competence of the General Assembly to modify rules of
common law within constitutional parameters. (Emphasis
supplied) .
5
In holding that the recreational nature of a trespass does
not constitute a defense the =mixt court followed its earlier
ruling in Hartman v. Tresise, supra.
The court concludes, therefore, that Respondents Koolstra,
Marshall and Westbrook trespassed upon Petitioners' property when
they drove their motor boat upon the waters, and intruded into the
air space, above the Petitioners land. The Court further concludes
that the Respondents Hart also committed trespass by publishing
their belief that they and those using the water of Newell Lake
through their auspices had the right to use and surface of the
entire lake and by not monitoring the use of said surface waters in
accordance with Petitioners' requests and instructions.
Injunctive Relief is proper to restrain trespass on lands.
Colorado Courts have long accepted the premise that an injunction
will be allowed to restrain a trespass upon lands. Traver v. Dodd,
133 P. 1117 , 24 Colo.A. 273 (1913) . In particular, a wrongful
invasion of the rights of another in respect to the enjoyment of
water was held to afford ground for equitable relief by injunction.
Koch v. Story, 107 P. 1093, 47 Colo. 335 (1910) . Likewise,
wrongful taking or destroying of real property has always been
regarded in Colorado as irreparable injury giving right to an
injunction. gina v. Porter, 235 P. 561, 77 Colo. 257 (1925) .
While the commission of a single trespass usually will not be
enjoined unless it is destructive to property, or works an
irreparable injury, if further trespasses are threatened or the
single trespass is continuous in its nature, it may be enjoined,
goch v. Story supra. In this matter before the Court there has
been repeated, recurrence of the trespass. The inadequacy of a
remedy at law in this situation is obvious. A separate action
would have to be brought for damage on each recurrence of the
injurious act. To prevent this multiplicity of lawsuits, an
injunction is a proper remedy. Patina v. Giorgetta, 78 P. 612, 20
Colo.A. 338 (1904) ; Cobai v. Young, 679 P.2d 121. Sylvester. et
al. v. Jerome, 34 P. 760, 19 Colo. 128 (1893) . The value of
damages incurred by wrongful trespass upon the Petitioners,
property which deprives the Petitioners of the peaceable use and
possession of its said property would be speculative and virtually
impossible to specifically ascertain. If there is no clear and
adequate remedy at law or if the remedy at law is obscure and
doubtful, the proper remedy under Colorado law is an injunction.
Hercules Equipment Co. v. Smith, 335 P.2d 255, 138 Colo. 458
(1959) .
Injunction is a proper remedy even if criminal or civil laws
prohibits same conduct. An injury to private property is in its
nature special and peculiar and constitutes a private wrong, though
the act causing the injury may also bop a disturbance or an
obstruction to the public right. The right of the people to have
the laws of society observed in no sense limits or curtails the
6
right of the individual to maintain a suit in equity to restrain
the threatened injury, the commission of which would certainly
result in a private wrong to him by injuring or depriving him of
his property rights. Rogers. et al. v. Nevada Canal Company, 151
P. 923, 60 Colo. 59 (1915) . Although the fact, as here appears to
be the case, that law enforcement authorities fail to enforce the
law, does not in and of itself constitute grounds for an
injunction, it should be considered as part of the reason an
injunction is the proper remedy. See people ex rel. L'Abbe. et al.
v. District Court of Lake County, 58 P. 604, 26 Colo. 386 (1899) .
Where rights or interests are entitled to protection under tort,
contract or common law principle, passage of a statute providing
penal protection for the same rights and interests will not in
absence of clear legislative intent bar private suit to enjoin the
wrongful conduct. American Television and Communications Corp. v.
Nanning, 651 P.2d 440 (Colo. App. 1982) ; Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 65(a) .
The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction or
restraining order is a matter within the sound discretion of the
trial court. Network Telecommunications Inc. v. Boor-Crepeau. 790
P. 2d 901 (Colo. App. 1990) ; Crosby v. Watson, 355 P.2d 958 (Colo.
1960) ; Allen v. City and County of Denver, 351 P.2d 390 (Colo.
1960) ; $pickerman v. Sproul. 328 P.2d 87 (Colo. 1958) .
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that injunctive
relief is proper in the within case.
DECRY`
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. The use of the surface of the water and the air space above
the surface of the water of Newell Lake abutting and lying above
the real property owned by Petitioners is subject to their sole
control and discretion pursuant to the terms of the Newell Lake
Drainage District Agreement dated August 26, 1965, the statutes of
the State of Colorado and pertinent case law.
2. The use of the surface of the water and the air space above
the surface of the water abutting and lying above the real property
owned by Respondents Hart is subject to their sole control and
discretion pursuant to the terms of the Newell Lake Drainage
District Agreement dated August 26, 1965, the statutes of the State
of Colorado and pertinent case law.
3. From and after the date hereof Respondents, and each of
them, and persons using the surface waters of Newell Lake at their
invitation or with their express or implied acquiescence, are
hereby enjoined from entering upon or inviting or encouraging
others to enter upon, under or above the surface of the waters
abutting and lying above Petitioners' real property as described on
7
Exhibit A.
4 . From and after the date hereof, the Respondents Hart, and
each of them, are enjoined from aiding, abetting, or encouraging
persons to enter upon the sur waters and faceair r express
ac
e above
Petitioners Property, without Petitioners prior
invitation or authority.
5. The acts of Respondents in coming upon the surface of the
water and the air space above the water which overlies
Petitioners Property without Petitioners, prior invitation or
authority constitutes trespass, as complained of in the Second
verified Petition, constitute trespass by Respondents other than
Hart, and each of them.
6. The acts of Respondents Hart in inviting, aiding,
abetting or encouraging persons, including the other named
Respondents, to any other person to enter upon the surface waters
and air space above Petitioners, Property, without Petitioners,
prior express invitation or authority, of which complaint is made
in the Seconded Amended Verified Petition, constitutes trespass.
7 . From and after the date hereof, Respondents, and each of
them, are enjoined from in any way threatening or abusing the
physical well-being of any Petitioner and from making defamatory,
derogatory, humiliating or untrue remarks about any Petitioner
which remark arises from the dispute which is the subject matter of
this action.
8. The Second Cause of Action of Petitioners, Second Amended
Petition and the Second Claim for Relief of Respondents,
counterclaim are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay
his own costs and Attorney fees.
DONE THIS _IL- day of & , 1999.,
C T.� ,�
f /dG
trict Judg
8
n
k
4 - v ,
. • A O A i t Y t M t a dap of t �e
: wide and •µesel late file aay et'
+�
tit d betveS' Wai DeA{MAOS D111116 fleas• et iota
Ulf 0Y wad betrwt tttt L • of tia-
» ,ed tW fitesdte•d lwl 1011 t b• a e' y'
to ,e 0i'tsiot 1d poasA». itti{{iltil •petlas ;•,
'•... •plea Le ew••tttr wade► rat•► fee 1aW pµel N N•ed l •
�....• •fur retorted to u W ale legated /1 Deli COWti, ,;,, ••
Novell Wa• Is ► 1 Su t.Y•
' ' otttttt % . Dsµ et do
L'. IS, tora••y 4 e Statists
Rwp t1 '
ueerdu0e Vitt ehUI•r dr.•ATtll a 1, •',•,'}
w•rell Lake tteiadl 1prldt to • dsaNdp ltdtTWt or •To •nt,,,
pr,,, established 9 Nd7 b ustai, ,+.:
3. Colorado Aeslood it,tutes• as anesltd• • 1111 • asp Wµr►ttft •
itself ll r•taw0 w tit t bsoer0aad the ,. ,
i;'.. and Muo�,te0 sad
7lad ill tits te0•{igpp p u/W�to 7sertdt a
Service, •v Wed to ptee de •.,,;.
-'r w1 071, Newell Wk• hibtt l Ott yes `s ea{• a ta•Nddl
'E- Celestas Serfµ' itstotee, t IItesetow•^ '
to ' arat•tN ar•t•e ter the LohA/toot• tt tW toe r
III, . Cha/tor dr, , t• friths to boo ett et et oo 4 ,
�] . velICSltlt, the 1•N Owasso bar* ats SOMA; tW the is oo a ptld the ':f;•j
W • µµNP et Ue1. rfta
of Novell hake that
tb AL5Hbt V set a 000000 t w
4947 ,nd 1•,w .11 rte► eoW/woo t 1b r
1 ' pale 00000000
to seeeloratteasot 4947111 be { • '.•,
`9..:1• D0f1{AD, eh• Be•N st nStl1ea et Pull{bb. 'yaerl t of 00 llul$t9411;.;,::,,
•. a. soli • portion et the tIle b0 lµ9 f
nest Woa'laton•t to ihrt► •at/woe 6i 1,etptCrrWTs that '1:?.
?.il•;
rut ae le} ens off lefsiN ' :. .,
ru7r eve there his
hiss
typed b7 0, yhtoh etS thd•.p •.r .... ,y.1.
' ' over Ole i
the pier sad alt raitOttpl aid Wwip'lr.S•: .,:,4.....aisles naylia Posers r lea Math. t''
eil .she pi propose a to glitttl1 t '
wlrovlS5• ke Distaste does
e t a the elettttta of teal 1
within the t••sii W isrlde toe ewe aoffoel •:':
V. OR ONrtolol to NN to,► and .roue'•:,.,%•
T1 • Lake /reYlded the mats, lent doµ Aft west
.ua •a •lio•ue' of propose {etallo, ill ether t
;�- • n the Nevolt Lind
praises, D►etpt0{,► ,eseelible $aei015 to tact
burden tW Mw10 CePefe5 tut to order 10 provide•ter dntf►t}t •r '
outdon arts 4aµ 1 eoveaaate h.reisattel: ; 1
'MintCWsubjW;tod,oadlftoa bt►te ths d, the pu{tq•hdreto sure'
• sot torch all . 1
33,, s• toilorat t •t
e{' ryry lydNd`' ep;le$ yhtap
'haply Ses at tes•au to Pep buttµ A !b 4011 tads toeril 1st ' `
?+ able rowts s de,oa the lase th set t$eOt lµ lµ et tt strati.;
e{e blest t 1
t • lase 00000 pith 0000 , .5d setwtd `7
oats foV v a , t}" prey uf• •Uh t • *rotes
pp *f 5eflfl •tN
• tear-toot leg ' • ptio�tNt'et hteei,, {.7-7. .. .
Oil s a r•0000 prestos r T Silt ►W Na••0.1.16:407t0.0::::
f E h et
crests • e•e► { Ye i•r�•_ dra► ttD dt/d tw .
t• o•prntlr 00,4i ettoo 9µO 01 ►s•r aa• i t j •
ft Nan be gn .sett the MOP stoHuo i1li!i A,Ithep bp. %°0. ',:,.,•
atPd alts M t ..,f, ':i7\r•1 ty .�y � !y Dtstrioi Soot ',flotsam
or tpr posit ':F,��c», •.r��'�i,'�Y.'... .'.... ��{{��f�444 A t,
C
•
•
1 )
II
'.•. (AlTh. Wid Owners line that the pt,ste% sax slistela the
I
f,.,; ,
01000000 �ed L no levels varyt fl o due tO oaths'the o.000000 x e<00000 t•
tutees{ ob0 ' Rothe may
vr to no/afate) th, Oro. tilt et ll
',. eat.°0000e,to thepl Ye. te , et Dodo or any sops eiremsetasees
which shall isbeyond the ns.osable eeatnl OS the Da0000t.'
(p) The Lad ows.e, Nne Ma{ tie 0000a/e)'t of mgt asp all
'y .. sad that°the Lilt goer,vial sit iii,° SO at►, II ix Neie ► Lox,.
$ et tbs /rater et Si. tans
•.i
ee°Wodhere'lm' 000000tli ors the egs.ship tad aatitera e no;titian
•
wits.4.4 yn a rce le (roe or Noi .l Ls et tt, A Milt tts. dt oe ltie.
Lint le too. lay Novell Ws. Deaita`s Millet l 5415 t to ali,►dY
Load Driers' laud .hall not be obligated to bole sore p►re the aeo'
Ole ipotesi* in.the burden tree)gosh seste a befits',, .W a the
exclusive It a .grits nt 00041, sod She 110•Wt O .tans tolton.
lover.l right sti ul deals s.d egrnrt wa t?sag to th, oe o oo Soo Lola ,
�./ lover level�stipulated
is Paragraph r 111 0 a'o IDLY except tagreed1
rater Drsa this ditto. It e fl1i' i {bet st�itt .Digits`right, swayed
tot
pros ulof of till polo ene� event, sny sad sit witeiaiti Diaitoe .
by a tee°. .as..
by tau Mfsaoe5e nbell neat bleb to She Wad Owners.
• (C) The Land O°aere °tea that the vets? towels sad totatnts.
eot forth to paragraph 1 ere lit thdr request sad that the ides level, ,
- pro •tr°oo41e to thee. • 0°0 apleT' ' i
(p) •
Toe Wad Owners sirs. that the dhioetofs, °Pau.
and do any ►et vhtes Is ranen,bly mio• .s"1 to ,. I
sow of the putrut Will hers ib, fifit to oter ups° Issas Osier•
ewe to esae wavers,
n•touu sag protect the distaste .w.Ha' rules and rsfltttot ,
(re The by tb, pt inn to .thee by any '
that ore ar up by the DLatrtei tow the pfouottoe and Plsts.•eo5 a • I�
the driiiill system' s
(y) Sam Lang Owners Mate to fauteuil*,
°ibosiert6!dadlsee
or other tram tor p00000linWu Worts, ie 01 alto at in? i it 9n5
or employes, ter ► d Owners, sitrtut as
In ►pnWf O0i Plata{ %h p
or fed, oevirtfl tweets, s tfri see et Lese g whisk the ►atltol
shall i0 pII to further f4tue if oriel'
faun'. pi,tr s she pin by beS,espon ib rirsed
vould be named • P s.ts 0r os edOt.
upon the iellioi or shore responsible
keteLl Loki $91tikWS et soy t .
of Land Mere. hot,' lad isotope, do
(a) W glee tow pry or otrt i nos si ,teat or
Woo Owners, top thsseels.s, shots {t
thereby trim(eels, hey and st► at
on ioeeeni 0ihf lu°Wotttn°t.ter tits tete'. $00 500``i Ous to ptnte et
a Old aeet0t
et ► htfh titer Levstmt yeeorvet? ei the OOleto oetteioas eo •)
rood and ,hellos sort,' o or n t lit ep trove►/ a7�ihitoio f ► t�'•
mareeis vhtoh has Mr►ansoubteot fit eats lael Itati
•
•
• two Dl.iriot of x.wli 4ah , M
ill oo iii control sod w, of
(1) It ad lass,
to tstuatDe ►it s t Shulpl 00000* in the band Others,
the 51st 10s unit' et ti DI tnt tt=at ►i ails t ?Ll a eteshth
bed GS 10ho t'0nan5, t i
I1 ' bads uhf isle she 1 he in s Seer ? ght a aeeah to the Otte
euttagey ram{h that toe wa' t epitl•te 'DO etfeeted lino the vetting trot eherl hirer l s.5 level, toe ttUe to Shelf int sh;
Pao a tithe Minton o$ t }
vetoing toe isarla of ins lie`' y` t a t... . ....erk " ..
art be etftaDHVR%.A Seta}s.4 / p f, ef. ► r
the,>a!I F�ttl oe ' .. .,
,.. , ,.. ...a°Prow
:,.. .•.rot:n..rrsar..,N.ow.V444pwlm,400, 600w w"fte,.
d
` V
;
' l
i 1 )
4.
, 1 (I) it to mutually airosd that this A reeaent Shull be sosotrusg;; r
. . ora
••the Soaping purples to be d0000ltsldi 1 loess alt Lake.laid it►1' pwdl
- rake Paint* Distrait in mud Se
' 7. Shows rights to rate► eettatad to Knelt 3ake'.sad
T. . oourasa.wt tatlev to take.
S. t lake wits? es lad with!' the
;'' District.
4. To obtain the lowest cost to the Dlstri0t in order'to,
.. a resolve drains' nobles, vlthis the Dlstrist. •
"'• •
S. To provide a method to soli, lease ad dispose it the
le i'/. use of District water.
n??:. -
;!' (D) St is 111 agreed that all. laid crier' ylt. r Sewell '. , '.,.:,t
sp:Ji'Yko Orabbfe Dletrle, shalt be 00000 a Me}t�?terl`p1Ndr�rest too •y'f,,� ;
.. owned by lb. Diutr Ht. 'IMO'S top t C A
,,''tibia tbo Noxell lake Protease the
00000 des ? RI to purchase PN► '
, '..1;;!. ', ire. the Dile1 of shall nosily the Beard tf 000000 ho is Mil's .
rat v'. betoas April 1 of *soh sear et the aaeat et actor ho desire•s to
•
° , a ' flakator ase-h if(S) the VS 000000 price of Melia l? em ►be eppurposed,a Thee/''
r' values of the pashas. prise is to ho pall prior to dextral. ratture•;
"CL . to ate glair mama rill result it the at ot•tee 000000t tt ,,•
;Wobble. It rotuasto to pushes rater eased the Supply, them the „{: .;,'.
svalisbtb supply shalt he prorated as the ward shall ,..1,:7;i4,1
,,;,•111 _(
Rules sod asiulatieos ter the puHkon'of votll ho tor the flea
of the supply, !a ..
its to time Py the Beard et 00000{oro t the NAMPO. • '. ,f+'_
•' (D) It is autiati? aimed that the Land Ownerrs ea irritate . •' ....
their 'Mtn tbe
nu ited, with water 000 Slier
atild i000i the lake on at the
Lad' •. .". :
I arbor, Gall aot hive to pat the Distitit for thil.irrii`iti►lt or oo ' . , :.11.
'4 • previdod that this rich{ to irrl ate shalt sot b trig, R d CORGIS '' 4 ';"
sold ott the orltiaat lad to whiee ii to pivot sad {{1kto to • t',.
provide a ROMP ad pay tee extern of traaspsoila` the 0000r to .:.::�•,
"f' their tang. This land Criers tort`atltttea re right Pall not ytialt
�•y,•' Cho levering of retell lake below the ilcra{tta of {Iii. •'v. •ry
mt.
v'•'' (a) It is mutually lined that this 000000000 is invaded to I.A. .. I
• he a aorem.at which sail run with the lad r d be h idiotts Ypon all' '' !r
[slap or aasitaS of the puttee b y
',a;,'• IN 1;11(108 the partite Moat, an h sot thole bands and .
-: seals the day aood yeti Sleet above willful.'
,
Bra._(iTJri. cl f1' I '` ,
t i • oat... : •. • .• "tt i' •
NSAH.i#lti(DDAIKAOB arum• ' :-,....,• . .•, euncary• • V1' 1.10 :"...4, 41 p.i�a.�
si- .. ........ ...,r•..nn.w.er le..Rp't' . .R.n•en .t.•.'DafO(¢ills rro(7fl�T -R'"j
z
O
R.
co
LL W o w
o y cr U
1- Q -, _i z
I
w O w
— > J J Y
ct
I ' 0 J Z CO w
w J >- .4
0 W 0 I a
U a
a w
a z
-- W ! 8Do
U
W (0 I cr o O
W m ( to ccaa
- a
/�1 ax _ in Q o f-
M l+- �/ \o, I 2 4. J w }
_ Ui_
a
o w o
U In U
££0
n
ro
l x !o`
/,
!0` , zrx, w l
0£0
I LZ0
650
w / --- -__ L
z
a
w Co
• E- Ia
a a f= I In
va
O
L - I I ----- - -
U m
U
N
1 I
Q Wel
2 m z
m g w ¢
o 7 w
m z y x
} w r r w ~
1 Wu U 0 F-. K o
¢
K K J
m F- I—. x 2 w LL Q
I
O
I
. L___ I 0111
Hello