PULSE OF THE IRRIGATION INDUSTRY. 



271 



THE WOOL MARKET. 



New wools from the Bright Wool Stations have 

 begun to make their appearance, but the receipts are 

 hardly large enough, however, to establish a market 

 on all grades. All wools showing a long and strong 

 staple, whether coarse, medium or fine, are readily 

 salable at full market value. Old lots of Territory 

 wools of good staple are hard to find, therefore new 

 wools that are well grown find a ready market. There 

 are orders waiting from manufacturers for such wool, 

 whether grown in the central or western states, at 

 full prices. Any further information on wool will be 

 furnished by Silberman Bros., 214 Michigan street- 

 Chicago. 



The farmers living on the south side of the South 

 Platte river, from old Fort McPherson to a point 

 opposite Gothenburg, have organized an irrigation 

 company, and are now engaged in their final survey. 

 They will commence excavating in June. Silas Clark, 

 of Cottonwood Spring, is managing. 



Colorado has 3,000,000 acres under artificial irriga- 

 tion. The farm products exceed $12,000,000 a year. 

 There are 1,500,000 cattle, 2,000,000 sheep. The coal- 

 fields cover 40,000 square miles. The supplies of 

 marble, granite and other building stone are inex- 

 haustible. 



Magnolia avenue, Riverside, Cal., is fifteen miles 

 long, 132 feet wide, and lined by three rows of pepper, 

 eucalyptus, palm and magnolia trees. 



California exhibits a sweet potato from Fresno 

 that weighs 44% pounds, and a peach from Bakers- 

 field that weighs 23 ounces. 



Utah is blessed with Territorial tree inspectors who 

 inspect. It is the best method of keeping the or- 

 chards free from pests. 



News from several points in Flordia indicates that 

 the settlers in that state are adopting the irrigation 

 idea rapidly. 



Boise City, Idaho, is to have a fruit cannery. 



DECISION OF COLORADO COURT. 



A case of the utmost importance to all water users has been 

 passed upon by the Court of Appeals. The Denver News says of it: 

 "The Court of Appeals rendered a very just and far-reaching opin- 

 ion on Monday affecting the rights of farmers who have bought and 

 paid for water, and the obligations of ditch companies to fulfill 

 their contracts It appears that the Rocky Ford Canal, Reser- 

 voir, Land, Loan and Trust Company had sold to Mrs. Mary A. 

 Simpson a certain amount of water which it failed to deliver. 

 As a consequence her crops dried up. She brought suit for 

 damages and obtained a judgment in the trial court. The defense 

 set up was that the canal was a long one, that it had broken in 

 several places, and plaintiff's farm being at the lower end of the 

 ditch it was impossible to get water to it. The case was carried up 

 to the Court of Appeals, which has affirmed the judgment. The 

 practical effect of the decision is that ditch companies must com- 

 ply with their contracts or suffer the consequences. Heretofore 



they have not done so. For years they have been robbing the 

 farmers of the state by collecting water rents in advance and then 

 delivering the water or not as the same was convenient. If the 

 farmer failed to get his water, and lost his crop, he did not even 

 get back the money he had paid for it. He lost money, labor and 

 crop. This opinion will put an end to this species of robbery." 



APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 



The following is the Wyoming Supreme Court decision on the 

 water right question, delivered February 15, 1894: 



McPHAiL v. FORNEY et al. The board of control fixed the 

 amount of water which a ditching company should take from a 

 certain creek, and described the land to be irrigated by such 

 water; and the ditching company deeded to plaintiff a four-fifths 

 interest in the ditch, and "the water therein contained," and one- 

 fifth interest to the defendant. Held, that the plaintiffs were en- 

 titled to enjoin defendant from diverting more than one-fifth of the 

 water from the ditch, though he owned more than one-fifth of the 

 land to be irrigated thereby, where he failed to show that water 

 was actually and rightfully being used on his land when he 

 acquired title, or that plaintiffs acquired their water rights after 

 he had acquired title to his land 



Error to District Court. Carbon county; Jesse Knight, judge. 



Action of William G. Forney individually and as administrator 

 of Mollie Forney, deceased, and Jane P. Dillard, to enjoin Donald 

 McPhail from diveiting for irrigation purposes more than one- 

 fifth of the water in the ditch of the Forney Ditching Company. 

 From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed. 



CONWAY, J. It is alleged in the pleadings by the parties to this 

 action, both plaintiffs and defendant, that the defendants in error 

 own a four-fifths interest in the irrigating ditch known as the "For- 

 ney Ditching Company's Ditch," and that plaintiff in error owns a 

 one-fifth interest in the same ditch. Plaintiff in error, however, 

 claims the right to divert from said ditch and use more than one- 

 fifth of the water carried by it. The parties, plaintiffs and 

 defendant, both claim under an order of the board of control, 

 dated March 24, 1892, determining and establishing in the Forney 

 Ditch Company a right by two appropriations to 6.28 feet per 

 second of time of the water of Jack creek, and describing the 

 lands to be irrigated by this water. The parties to this suit now 

 own the ditch in the proportions stated, deranging their respec- 

 tive titles from the Forney Ditching Company by the deeds pur- 

 porting to convey to them their respective interests in the ditch 

 and " the water therein contained." As held in the case of Frank 

 v. Hicks (decided at the present term), 35 Pac. 475, a right to the 

 use of water fof irrigation purposes, together with the ditch or 

 other conduit for the water, may be conveyed separate from the 

 land upon which the water is used. It seems that this is what 

 has been done with the water right involved in this action. Plain- 

 tiff in error claims the right to divert and use more than one-fifth 

 of the water carried by the ditch in question, although he claims 

 but one-fifth interest in the ditch, because, as he claims, he owns 

 more than one-fifth of the land for the irrigation of which the 

 appropriation of water was made by the Forney Ditching Com- 

 pany and allowed by the board of control. This claim is not con- 

 sistent. If he has acquired by the purchase of the land the right 

 to divert and use more than one-fifth of the water carried by the 

 ditch, he would, at the same time, acquire more than one-fifth 

 interest in the ditch as necessary to the enjoyment and use of the 

 water right. According to the principle announced in the case 

 of Frank v. Hicks, and a number of cases cited therein, when a 

 party who owns land, and a water right and ditch, used for the 

 purpose of irrigating the land, conveys the land, the water right 

 and ditch pass by the conveyance of the land. But plaintiff in 

 error does not, by his pleading or evidence, bring his claim within 

 the operation of these principles. He does not show that water 

 was rightfully and actually being used on his land when he ac- 

 quired title. He does not show that the conveyances of the 

 different interests in the water right acquired by the Forney Ditch 

 Company were not made before he acquired title to his land. 

 Plaintiff in error also forgets that it is just as necessary to the 

 creation and preservation of a water right to provide means for 

 the continual diversion of the water from its natural channel, and 

 for conducting it to the place where it is applied to some bene- 

 ficial purpose as it is to apply it to the beneficial purpose. 

 Plaintiff in error claims a right to the use of more than one- 

 fifth of the water furnished by the ditch mentioned. This 

 claim might well be decided against him on the pleadings as well 

 as on the evidence. This is the only question of interest involved. 

 Some errors in the proceedings in the District Court and in its 

 findings are assigned, but they are not material to the decision of 

 this question, and, if error, are not such error as to authorize a 

 reversal of the decision. The District Court, by its judgment and 

 decree, granted a perpetual injunction generally restraining the 

 plaintiffin error from diverting from the ditch known as the 

 " Forney Ditching Company's Ditch" more than one-fifth of the 

 water carried by it, but in certain contingencies allowing him 

 more than one-fifth. The judgment and decree are at least as 

 favorable to plaintiff in error as the facts warrant, and it is 

 affirmed, 



Groesbeck, C. J.. and Clark. J., concur. 



