51 



cation of water rights, since the court may call on liini for the sifrveys 

 or not, in its discretion. 



In two cases tlie court has called on the engineer for surveys — one 

 for the settlement of rights on the Boise River and one for the settle- 

 ment of rights on the upper Snake River. In each case the engineer 

 has made the measurements and prepared maps. The maps of the 

 Boise are on a scale of 600 feet to the inch, the canals and larger laterals 

 and irrigated lands being mapped frcun surveys. The areas served 

 by the various canals are shown in different colors, and the names of 

 the owners of all lands are placed on the map. In addition, statements 

 are made up showing the location and capacity of each lateral, the 

 name of tlie owner of each legal sulxlivision of land, the crops raised, 

 the areas irrigated, and the additional area irrigable. The statements 

 for each canal are bound together, and on the cover the statements 

 contained are summarized. 



The cost of the surveys, maps, and statements for the Boise River 

 was $10,704.60, and the total area irrigated 102,505.4 acres, and the 

 additional irrigable area under existhig canals 127,421.9 acres. This 

 makes a cost of 10.4 cents per acre irrigated or 4.7 cents per irrigable 

 acre for which water is claimed. 



The surveys on the upper Snake River covered 290,679 acres of 

 irrigated land and an additional area of 502,501 acres of irrigable 

 land, at a total cost of $28,000. This is at the rate of 3.5 cents per 

 acre for the entire area or 9.6 cents per acre irrigated. One-half 

 the cost of the surveys on the Snake River was borne by the United 

 States Geological Survey and one-half by the wState engineer's office, 

 the work being in charge of the engineer. 



The costs of these surveys are to be assessed by the court against 

 the parties to the adjudication pro rata. There was, however, no 

 appropriation to cover the expense of surveys, making it necessary 

 for some one to advance the money. In the case of the surveys 

 already made, some of the banks of the State advanced the cost upon 

 warrants issued by the State engineer and are holding them until 

 the cases are settled. 



The surveys and statements are filed with the court, and the 

 question of their status as evidence has been raised. In Boise City 

 Irrigation and Land Company v. Stewart, the State supreme court 

 held: 



I think it was the intent of the legislature to authorize the court to accept such evidence 

 just the same as any other evidence is accepted and to consider it with all the other evidence 

 in the case, and if it is shown to be correct to accept it; otherwise to give it such effect as 

 under all the evidence the court may think it entitled to. 



Judge Stewart, the defendant in this case, before whom the Boise 

 River case is being tried, has intimated that he will not accept the 

 surveys of the engineer as final on the acreages irrigated, where the 



