Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1909-07-24
sprinkling purposes.

,sprinkling purposes.
The company asserted that its
plant was adequate to pump enough
water for the needs of the city and
consumers and that its reservoir was
large enough to protect the city and
people against sudden water famine
or fire. in case of accident to its
pumping plant. In reply to the charge
that company officials had not nou
fled the city when it found that the
supply of water was decreasing, the
company made denial and said that
the proper city officials were notified
promptly by the company officials as
soon as they determined that the
wells were not producing as much wa
ter as was being consumed and that
at the same time a request was made
| that the city reduce the amount of
water used for sprinkling its streets
| and in street construction. The COM
pany charged that the amount of wa
! ter so used was excessive The city
was charged with refusing to curtail
this use of water at the request of the
company. 1t was asserted that by rea-
son of these facts, the company was
| forced to shut off pressure in order
! to keep it's reservoir full enough for
fire protection.
! The company's attorneys then re-
| ferred to the appointment of a com
mttee of experts by the city to in
vestigate the water company's plant
and quoted freely from the experts
report as to conditions as the experts
found them The company charged
that the city declined to adopt the
legislation recommended by the com
mittee of experts and gave the report
no attention in the way of acting up
on it's suggestions. The company also
asserted that the city "has at all
times anita agonized the efforts of the
defendant in meeting the unusual de-
mands for water and has refused "a
take any action to in any way limit
the use OF water to the actual needs
of the city and its inhabitants, to
meet existing conditions
Denial was made that the insur-
ance companies contemplate cancell-
ing insurance policies because Of lack
of fire protection.
The company also entered denia
that the health and safety Of the city
and its people, were jeopardized and
also that irreparable damage had re-
suited because OF inaction on the part
of the Water company.
Probably the most important par
, of the reply was the assertion by the
Water company that it had never re-
fused to comply with the terms of il!
franchise. It was stated, however
that the company had no objection Il
, a court decree for a specific perform
, ance Of its contract with the city, eX
Cept that the company declared suCt
Z . decree was unnecessary. since thu
shortage i'm the supply of water wal
+ responsible for existing conditions an,
; the company had no power over sucl
conditions.
Acted in Good Faith.
The company asserted that il wa
acting in good faith in its belief tina
) the water supplied bv It's wells woul,
} meet all demands during the presen
/ season and that as soon as fl discoV
P cred that the supply was less thar
- the consumption. it Immediately tool
t steps to ascertain the cause and rem
% edy it If possible. The company thei
r gave a detailed statement OF its worl
land improvements for number o
years past and asserted that it wa
p now under contract with Well drillor
D for four additional wells which II be
r ilieyed would give an ample supply %
e water. II .ontendod that the onl
- point actually involved in the presen
% suit was whether or not the cour
S could help matters by appointing
r receiver. The attorneys for the com
5 pany contendrd that even were a 70
cevier appointed he could not do NOR
y ->~~~~~-~--~~--~~-~~-~~ -~~-~>~-----~-~----~-