LEGAL NOTES ON IRRIGATION. 



ORDINARY RIPARIAN RIGHTS INADEQUATE. 



The doctrines relating to riparian rights in a non-arid country are 

 of necessity greatly modified in their application to the state of things 

 in an arid portion of the United States. At common law all riparian 

 proprietors have the right to a reasonable use of the waters of a 

 stream, running through their respective lands, for the purpose of 

 irrigation; what is a reasonable use must be determined, in each case, 

 with reference to the size of the stream, the velocity of the water, 

 the character of the soil, the number of proprietors, the amount of 

 water needed to irrigate, and a variety of other circumstances and 

 conditions surrounding each particular case, the true test in all cases 

 being whether the use is of such a character, as to materially affect 

 the equally beneficial use of the waters of the stream by the other 

 proprietors. (Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev., 73.) 



To concentrate and regulate the general principles of riparian 

 rights in the arid regions, irrigation districts are formed in California 

 with extensive powers; and individual rights are merged therein to a 

 large degree. The constitutionality of this has been disputed in Cali- 

 fornia partly on the ground of inequality of benefits to individuals; 

 but the matter has been conclusively settled in favor of the organiz- 

 ing legislation and the doctrine is established that "whenever it ap- 

 pears, from the scope of an act, that its object is for the benefit of the 

 public and that the means by which the benefit is to be attained are 

 of a public character, the act will be upheld notwithstanding inci- 

 dental advantages may accrue to individuals beyond those enjoyed by 

 the general public." (Matter of Bonds of Madera Irrigation District, 

 92 Gal., 296.) 



NATURE OF CORPORATION. 



In California an irrigation district is regarded as a public corpor- 

 ation, so that its officers are officers of the state. Ibid. 



And in Colorado it is the same, so far that a company may con- 

 demn property by the right of eminent domain. (Gibson v. Cann, 

 -Colo. Supp., 879.) 



PRIOR RIGHTS APPURTENANT TO LANDS DEEDS. 



Where defendant's deed to plaintiff's predecessor in title in Colo- 

 rado, creating water rights for irrigation appurtenant to plaintiff's 

 lands, gave to the plaintiff a priority of right to the water, and the 

 former retained the right of a junior appropriator, defendant's acts 

 .showing a purpose of using the water was held not to constitute a 



