69 
which the north Bide ditches are seeking to preveul the transfer of 
water from the Big Thompson Ditch and Manufacturing Company's 
Ditch and the Big Thompson No. 1 ditch to the I tandy, I Ionic Supply, 
and rlillsboro ditches. 
The suits are simply a continuation of the efforts of the south-side 
ditches to overcome the disastrous effects of the decrees which gave 
excessive amounts to the old ditches, allowing enlargement and in- 
creased use to an extent which has seriously affected the water avail- 
able to till their priorities. 
OTHER LITIGATION. 
NEW LOVELAND AND GBEELE1 I.AM) AND [RRIGATION COMPANY V. HOME 
SUPPLY COMPANY. 
[i)L ) Pacific Reporter.] 
Both parties to this suit own large and valuable reservoirs under 
their respective canals — Lake Loveland under the Loveland and Gree- 
ley (anal and the Mariano and Lone Tree reservoirs under the Home 
Supply. The action was brought in the district court of Boulder 
County to establish the relative right of priority of these reservoirs. 
The Loveland and Greeley Ditch priorities as decreed are prior to 
those of the Home Supply. The relative dates of construction of the 
reservoirs, however, are reversed, the Home Supply reservoirs being 
in Inn:? and 1889 and the Loveland Lake in 1893, each exercising clue 
diligence after commencement of work on the reservoirs in prosecut- 
ing the same to completion. 
The Loveland and Greeley Company claimed the right under it- 
ditch decree to divert the amount of its decree at any time and for any 
purpose which was more effective or economical; that is. to have the 
right to store water during the nonirrigating season on its ditch decree, 
the reservoir being a part of its system and its construction contem- 
plated at the time the several priorities were obtained, though it did 
not begin construction for some ten years after the decree was ren- 
dered fixing the ditch priority and some twenty-eight years after the 
date of its first priority. 
The Home Supply Company claimed that its reservoirs were con- 
structed and in operation ten and four years prior to the construction 
of Lake Loveland: that the right of storage attaches when the actual 
work of construction of the reservoir is begun and prosecuted with 
due diligence, and not when the feeder to the reservoir was begun, 
unless the two are closely connected in point of time, in intention and 
actual construction. 
The court held that the mere intention is of itself insufficient to give 
a vested right, but must be manifested by the completion of the gen- 
eral plan and a beneficial use within a reasonable time. 
