166 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



ficial purpose. Though, during the 'sus- 

 pension of his use, other persons might 

 temporarily utilize the water appropriated 

 by him, yet no one could afford to make 

 disposition for the employment of the 

 same involving labor or expense of any 

 considerable moment, when liable to be de- 

 prived of the element at the pleasure of the 

 appropriator after the lapse of any period 

 of time however great." 



WASTING WATER. 



In the case of Roeder v. Stein, decided 

 by the Supreme court of Nevada in De- 

 cember, 1895, and reported in the Forty- 

 second Pac. Rep. 867, the court discussed 

 the subject of wasting water by those who 

 had originally appropriated it for some 

 beneficial use or purpose. And the court 

 held that where it appears that the plaint- 

 iff made the first appropriation, by means 

 of a certain ditch, of enough water to irri- 

 gate 125 acres of land, and that subject 

 thereto the defendant had made an appro- 

 priation, the court has the power to direct 

 that the plaintiff must use the water 

 through that ditch or by other means that 

 will be least wasteful. The court further 

 held that the first appropriator is only en- 

 titled to the water to the extent that he 

 has use for it when economically and rea- 



sonably used. When he has that he can- 

 not prevent others from making use of the 

 surplus; and the court also further held 

 that after others had acquired rights to 

 the use of the water of the stream, the 

 first appropriator for irrigating purposes 

 cannot, to their detriment, change the 

 method by which he conveys it to his land, 

 so as to increase the waste that naturally 

 occurs in such conveyance. The court in 

 the opinion said: "As already remarked, 

 water is too precious to permit its being 

 wasted. Conveying it through a ditch, 

 even, will always cause some loss, and if 

 the distance is great or the soil loose or 

 porous the loss will be considerable. This, 

 within any reasonable expense, is gener- 

 ally unavoidable. But, however this may 

 be, if the appropriation has been made 

 before others acquired rights in the stream, 

 after that no change can be made to their 

 detriment. The first appropriator must 

 continue to use it in at least as economical 

 a manner as before, and cannot change the 

 method of use so as to materially increase 

 the waste. Such a change may be forbid- 

 den and parties ' may be compelled to keep 

 their flumes and ditches in good repair so 

 as to prevent any unnecessary waste.' ' 

 Citing, Barrows v. Fox, 98 Cal. 63; 32 

 Pac. Rep. 811. 



THE EDGEMONT CANAL IN SOUTH DAKOTA. 



