PULSE OF THE IRRIGATION INDUSTRY. 



149 



cussion of water rights as recognized in that region where irriga- 

 tion is necessary how such rights may be acquired and pre- 

 served, or lost. 



"After the beginning of placer mining in California, the courts, 

 taking notice of the local conditions and wants, recognized the 

 rights in running water which had gained a practical existence 

 among miners. In the progress of evolvement the right was held 

 to extend to all applications of water to useful purposes. Ripa- 

 rian rights were held subordinate, that the entire water supply 

 might be utilized, and thus every business and industry derive 

 the benefit of it. Congress and every legislature in the States 

 covering or including the arid region, regulated water rights on 

 this basis. The author has lucidly explained and stated the law 

 in its origin and in all its stages of development. He has gen- 

 eralized the decisions, both federal and State, with great thor- 

 oughness and accuracy. His work will be of great value to all 

 persons who have interests depending on the use of water; and to 

 practitioners and judges who have to deal with water rights in . 

 the Pacific States it will be invaluable." 



Phillip G. Roeder, of Cleveland, Ohio, has issued a volume 

 compiled from data gathered by him during several years' ex- 

 perience in Mexico as a manufacturer's agent, entitled " The 

 Exporter's Hand Book of Mexico." It contains carefully revised 

 lists of bankers, reliable merchants in all lines of trade, profes- 

 sional men, landed proprietors, mining companies, etc., in forty- 

 three cities of Mexico. Also population of cities, railroads on 

 which located and mail routes. In addition it contains shipping 

 directions, customs laws and vocabulary of proper names and 

 terms. 



To those desirous of opening trade relations this book will be 

 found invaluable. Price $2.00, postpaid. Phillip G. Roeder, 664 

 Cedar Ave., Cleveland, Ohio. 



RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS. 



Right to Use of Water for Irrigation. The right to the use of 

 water for the irrigation of land, together with the ditch making 

 such right available, becomes so attached to the land, as part and 

 parcel thereof, as- to pass by a conveyance of the land, without 

 mentioning the water right, and to be subject to the liens and lia- 

 bilities which attach to the land, and entitled to the same exemp- 

 tions as the land. 



Frank v. Hicks. (Supreme Court of Wyoming.) 35 Pac. Rep. 

 475. (74). 



Rights of Stockholders in Irrigation Companies. A stock- 

 holder of an irrigation company organized to furnish water ex- 

 clusively to its stockholders is entitled to the proportion of the 

 water carried through its irrigation canal that the amount of his 

 stock bears to the whole amount of the stock of the company. 



Rocky Ford Canal, Reservoir, Land, Loan & Trust Co. v. 

 Simpson. (Appellate Court of Colorado.) 36 Pac. Rep. 638. (50). 



What Constitutes Sufficient Complaint Against Diversion of 

 Water. In an action for diversion of water from a stream, a 

 complaint which states that the complainant is the owner and in 

 possession of land through which a certain stream of water was 

 accustomed to flow, and that another diverted the water of the 

 stream from its accustomed channel, need not also state that the 

 complainant had the right to use the water, since such right is 

 implied from his ownership of the land. 



Shotwell v. Dodge. (Supreme Court of Washington.) 36 Pac. 

 Rep. 254. (80). 



Diversion of Water from Premises of Lower Riparian Owner. 

 A landowner who diverts the water of a stream flowing through 

 his land into a ditch running through a porous soil, so that much 

 of the water is lost by soaking through the bottom of the ditch, 

 and the rest is lost at the end of the ditch, the only benefit re- 



ceived being from the water that percolates sideways through 

 the banks of the ditch, is liable, in at least nominal damages, 

 to owners of land further down the stream, since such use of 

 the water is not reasonable irrigation. 



Shotwell v. Dodge. (Supreme Court of Washington.) 36 Pac. 

 Rep. 254. (98). 



Extent of Enforcement of Water Rights. Where a petition 

 alleged that petitioners were entitled to 119.43 cubic feet of water 

 per second for two ditches; that such ditches took the water from 

 the Platte river; that in several water districts lying above on 

 such river, ditches of junior appropriators were diverting the 

 water which would otherwise supply petitioners' ditches; and 

 asked that a writ of mandamus issue, directing the state engin- 

 eer, and other irrigation officers to close the gates and shut the 

 water " from all ditches in the territory named whose priorities 

 were later than those of" petitioners, the prayer for relief was 

 held to be too broad and could not be granted. 



Farmers' Independent Ditch Co. v. Maxwell. (Appellate Court 

 of Colorado.) 36 Pac. Rep. 556. (113). 



Grant of Rights by Ditch Company 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 ditch company sold a four-fifths interest in 

 the ditch and the water, and a one-fifth interest in the same to a 

 different party. Though the second purchaser owned more than 

 one-fifth of the land to be irrigated by means of the ditch, he 

 could be enjoined by the other owner from diverting more than 

 one-fifth of the water if he failed to show what water was actually 

 and rightfully being used on his land when he acquired title, or 

 that the owners of the four-fifths interest in the water acquired 

 their water rights after he had acquired title to his land. 



McPhail v. Forney. (Supreme Court of Wyoming.) 35 Pac. 

 Rep. 773. (140). 



A provision in a contract between a ditch company and the 

 owners of land irrigated by the ditch that, if the company shall 

 willfully fail or refuse to supply any land owner with the amount 

 of water agreed upon, the land owner shall have the right, upon 

 payment or tender thereof, to take the water, is void, because in- 

 consistent with the right of control incident to the ownership of 

 the ditch, and against public policy as tending to confusion and a 

 breach of the peace. 



Farmers' Highline Canal and Reservoir Company v. White. 

 (Col. App.) 31 Pac. Rep, 345. 



A FIVE MILLION ACRE SUIT. 



Judge J. O. Broadhead, of St. Louis, J. K. Rickey, of Washing- 

 ton, and P. B. Thompson, of New York, are preparing the papers 

 in an important land case that is to be tried before the United 

 States land court, whose session will begin in Denver, Oct. 15. 



The case involves a tract of land 150 miles long and 50 miles 

 wide in the Salt River valley, Arizona. There are 4,750,000 acres 

 in the claim, a large part of which is capable of irrigation. By 

 the expenditure of $5,000,000 it is estimated by engineers that the 

 land will be worth $50,000,000. The city of Phcenix is located on 

 the grant, and the celebrated ruins of the Casa Grande are also 

 in its boundaries. Remains of pre-historic irrigation ditches 

 show that the land was once under high cultivation. 



The case promises to attract general attention on account of 

 the amount involved and the romance of its history. From the 

 records which are found in the City of Guadalajara, Mexico, it is 

 shown that the land was granted in 1742 by Emperor Ferdinand 

 of Spain to Don Miguel Peralta, a Spanish Knight of the Golden 

 Fleece and Baron of Colorado. His sole descendant is the wife 

 of J. A. Peralta Reavis, a resident of Missouri, in whose name 

 the contest is to be made. 



By the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the 

 terms of the Gadsden Purchase all the old Mexican titles are 

 guaranteed by the United States government, and if the con- 

 testee is successful she will be paid $1.25 per acre for all the land 



