Arizona republican., 1901-12-19
BROADENED WATER SUIT
Answer and Cross - Complaint to In-
 junction Cases

filed by the Salt River Valley Canal company and the Maricopa Canal com
 pany against nineteen farmers of the
 valley, to restrain them from break
 ing the headgates of the canals, were
 filed in district court yesterday. Ac-
 companying the answer is a cross
 complaint which goes into the water
 situation very fully and con
 templates. so the defendants claim,
 the most comprehensive water litiga-
 ton ever begun in the United States.
 with the possible exception of the fa-
 nous Colorado Kansas case. The answer and cross-complaint were
 drawn up by J. w. Mccormick and E.
 w. Lewis. The document comprises
 thirty-six typewriter pages. con
 taining about 10000 words. There are
 besides several pages of exhibits. in
 cluding copies of the various water
 rights, water right deeds, the present
 contract between the Arizona Water company and water users. tables show
 ing the dates of the construction of all
 the canals in the Salt and Verde val leys. and the dates and amounts of
 the appropriation of water and the description and dates of settlement of the tracts of land owned by the de- fendants in these cases. There is also a blue print map of the irrigation
 
 The answer consists of a general denial of all the allegations in the com plaint, of the described location of the Salt River Valley canal head. of the appropriation of water for the stockholders, of the companies con tracts with them, and of the erection of headgates for their service. It is also denied that none of the defen- dants are shareholders or water right
 
 tractual rela ton with the company. It is alleged on the other hand, that they have had an agreement with the canal companies for fifteen years. The an- swer closes with a prayer that the temporary injunction, by which they are deprived of water. may be dis solved.
 The cross-complaint begins with a general description of the water con ditions in the valley and the history of modern irrigation here since the con struction of the Swilling ditch in 1867. The later canals are given in the order of their construction with the amount of water appropriated by each at diff ferent times up to the present day. A reference to the exhibits shows that these appropriations amount altogether to a little more than 2.500.O00 inches. rather more than flows in the Mis- sissippi.
 It is charged that the Arizona Canal company by fraudulent employment of the desert land act, secured pos session of vast tracts of land upon which it proceeded to divert water which belonged to the earlier settlers. This was done largely through the Arizona canal By purchasing land under tEe old canals with the water rights attached it secured a controlling interest in them and subverted the | principle. which until then had been recognized that the water belonged to the land In 1882 for the first time, 1 water was offered for sale or rent The ! diversion of water under this arrange | ment is declared to be contrary to the | laws of the territory. the laws of con- gress and public policy. In 1887 The Arizona Improvement company, which | had been formed, issued the first water | right deeds, which differed from the | water rights only in that they were | to designated tracts of land | while the water rights were leased | and rented indiscriminately.
 Several causes of the shortened | water supply in this valley are set out | in the complaint. The early settlers | directed their attention chiefly to the | raising of grain and alfalfa. These | crops could be made" in the winter | when there was always plenty of | water. Then came the planting of or | chardS and vines, which required a | great deal of summer water, SO that | in the course of time there was not | enough for the new industries and the old crops. The situation was made | worse by the greatly increased acre l age and the diversion of water upon ] newly opened lands along the Verde.
 It is alleged that the rights of the | in these cases were once | recognized by the companies and that that recognition is now a matter of record. In the litigation which arose among the canal companies of the north and south sides and which was settled by the Kibbey decision. the | were compelled to bring into | court a showing of their needs. These | showings were to be considered to- gether and they were to be made the basis for an equitable distribution of water under the order of the court. In the showing made by the companies at that time. it is alleged that the lands of the defendants were listed among 1 those to which the companies had to supply water. It is contended that tine relation between the plaintiffs and the defendants has not been changed | since that time.
 The chief interest in the complaint lies in the final prayer. It asks that all the canals taking water from the Salt river and the Verde be joined in this action either as plaintiffs or de- II