Arizona republican., 1899-07-02
DISTRIBUTION OF WATER
An Injunction Issued From inc DiS-
 fricf Court Yesterday.

i In the district court yesterday an in- i iunclion was issued in the case of Thomas r. Briggs ct al vs. the Utah
 Irrigation Ditch company and J. i Johnson, W. w. DObsOn. E. E. Brown, directors, and Thomas E. Jones. water master. The Injunction was issued against the plaintiffs in the case. The story of the litigation is as follows: In 1877 q cooperative colony Of twenty-four families emigra:ed from Ui;ah and settled on twenty five quar- ter sections of land now lying under this canal. During the summer they eXcavated a canal and constructed q dam in Salt river for the GtyrrSiOn of water to the canal. Thus far they seemed to work by mutual consent and unity of interest in providing water for community purposes and use ;n agricultural pursuits, stock ia:.!ag and domestic purposes.
 After completing the canal they or ganiZed the Utah Irrigating D.tc" com pany in due form with officers and ] board of directors, to conTrol the bus mess. A certificate of ownership of one-tWenty- fifth part was issued to the head of each of the twenty-four :ann- lilies. The land was all cleare,1 and in 1879 in consideration of certain work to be performed by them, two sec,ioDs of land and q seVen-twentS Tiff -IlS ir- terest in the water carried by the canal was turned over to the Pima and Mar icOpa, Indians resident along he ditch No certifica1es of membership or OUl- ership in the canal. however. were :s sued to the Indians, or to any oun :n their interest.
 The government the same year gave the two sections mentioned tC sha In dians, who to this day have carried ,.pG their agreement in the performance 0: their part of the work
 In 1882 the company permitted seven Individuals 10 enlarge 1na cibal ip carry water to seven more sections oe land and issued them certificates of membership. By the next yea~ the land had been so cut Up Iy sdIes 10 l smaller holders of forty and rirusy | ache tracts that in orolnr ic give nj rei:- reSentati0n in the ditcl iir cnr;per 1 certificates were recalled i:,G funr Ger 1 tificates issued in lien hr each former l certificate, making 12S shar,'a liGn.S.
 Now comes tba unfOf- unlIe part of | the story. It is alleged hIr in order to i save the trees, crops. etc. O. tle DIG perty oWnt-s under the tiit4li IT !S nt- l cessary that at least fve-eiehi,s Of 2 | miners inch of water for each acre Of land under cultivation, must he at~Ibe i disposal Of each owner constantly n l order to give him q sufficient water supply. In dry seasons, like the pres ent the supply in the canal wiF Tot afford this amount of water and the original ditch owners claim that by priority of location they should be eu1l titled to this amount before those setI ting at a later date shall be consider ed. They allege that at the election of directors in October last persons not among the original locat0rs secured control of enough shares to control the election and that the direct OrS so elected have announced their intention of delivering pro rata all Wa ter in the canal to certificate holders regardless of time of settlement. They therefore pray that a perpetual injunc- ton shall issue prohibiting the delivery of water 10 those on ti1e new lands. eX- cept when there is an excess in the canal over 1500 inches, which is the required by the lands under the twentyfour original certificates. . The plaintiffs gave bond of $3.0G0 } nd an injunction was issued as stated Move, to be in force till the further
 ksr of the court.