THE IREIGATION AGE. 



115 



out of three, or three times out of four. If an engine 

 takes an explosion every time it is liable to run very 

 hot, and will most assuredly require much more gaso- 

 line than should be needed for the work. Many mis- 

 takes are made in buying engines that are too small. 



COST OF IRRIGATING. 



A rough idea as to the quantity of gasoline required 

 for irrigating may be gained by the following rules: 

 For small plants about 4-10 gallon will be used per 

 acre per season for each foot that the water is lifted, 

 while for large plants (10 H. P. or more) the quantity 

 may fall to y^ gallon per acre per foot of lift for the 

 season. The quantity of water pumped will be five 

 gallons per minute per acre of land, the plant to run 

 for 10 hours per day for 120 days. This will give an 

 acre-foot of water, or twelve inches depth over all, a 

 quantity considerably greater than is used for sugar 

 beets and potatoes in the northern district of Colorado. 

 It will thus be seen that the costs of pumping when 

 water need not be lifted more than say 20 feet are not 

 very great (4-10 gallon times 20 feet equals 8 gallons, 

 which at 15 cents per gallon makes $1.20 per acre for 

 the season if one acre-foot is sufficient), and as ample 

 water may be obtained from wells in practically every 

 irrigated country, it is a wise farmer who installs a 

 gasoline plant that he can operate when the water 

 does not run in the ditch, and thus saves his crops. 

 Many such auxiliary plants are in successful operation, 

 and the number installed each year is rapidly increas- 

 ing. Many plants are also depended upon for the 

 total quantity of water needed, pumping from lakes, 

 ditches or wells. Seepage water that comes to the sur- 

 face and ruins low land may be collected in a well and 

 pumped upon other land, the water that was injuring 

 one tract thus serving to reclaim another. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



WAIVER OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS BY APPROPRIATION. 



Settlers on public land, by asserting their right to water 

 for irrigation by reason of their priority of appropriation, 

 thereby waived their riparian rights to the water. Davis v. 

 Chamberlain. Supreme Court of Oregon. 98 Pacific 154. 



INJURY TO LAND BY LEAKAGE FROM DITCH. 



In an action for injury to land by leakage from defend- 

 ant's irrigation ditch, whether the land was injured by the 

 seepage of water from defendant's ditch held for the jury, 

 and a directed verdict for defendant was improper. Paolini 

 v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. California Court of Appeal. 



97 Pacific 1130. 



CHANGE OF DITCH. 



Where equitable owners of a water right petitioned for a 

 change from one point of diversion to another, the legal 

 owners were entitled to appear and consent or object to the 

 proposed change. Bates v. Hall. Supreme Court of Colorado. 



98 Pacific 3. 



APPROPRIATORS' RIGHTS. 



Decedent having posted notices of appropriation of water 

 for an irrigation project, he and his associates could proceed 

 under such notices to perfect their rights so as to make them 

 valid against all others, excepting those with prior and 

 superior rights to the water. Beckwith v. Sheldon. Supreme 

 Court of California. 97 Pacific 867. 



VESTED RIGHTS ACQUIRED ON COMPLETION OF CANALS. 



Vested rights in public lands to right of way for ditches, 



canals, or reservoirs for water purposes, under Rev St Sec- 

 tions 2339, 8340 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1437), are not ac- 

 quired until the actual completion of the work, so that the 

 water can be applied to beneficial use. United States v. 

 Rickey Land & Cattle Co. Circuit Court, California. 164 

 Federal 496. 



PROPERTY OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT 



VIOLATING TRUST. 



The rule that an exemption from execution of the prop- 

 erty of a quasi public corporation only receives from process 

 such property as is necessary to the exercise of the quasi 

 public functions which the corporation has assumed is not 

 applicable to lands of an irrigation district held under an' ex- 

 press trust created by Act March 7, 1887, as amended by St. 

 1897, p. 263, c. 189, where neither a sale of the land by the 

 district nor any execution sale can be made without violating 

 the terms of the trust. Tulare Irrigation District v. Collins, 

 Sheriff. Supreme Court of California. 97 Pacific 1124. 



DOUBLE FILLING OF RESERVOIR. 



A senior reservoir is entitled to but one filling during the 

 same season on the same priority before junior reservoirs are 

 filled once, under Mills' Ann. St. Section 2403, 2408, providing 

 that a decree must award priorities to the several reservoire 

 in the water district according to the time of construction and 

 to the extent of its capacity for storage, and that such reser- 

 voirs must be separately numbered consecutively according to 

 the priority of appropriation of water made thereby. Windsor 

 Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Lake Supply Ditch Co. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado. 98 Pacific 729. 



PARTIES TO ACTION TO PROTECT WATER RIGHTS. 



In an action to enjoin irrigation officers from enforcing 

 an order closing plaintiffs' headgates and diverting the water 

 to other consumers, the other consumers were indispensable 

 parties to the action, since the judgment would determine 

 their rights to the water as against plaintiffs, and they should 

 have been brought in under Mills' Ann. Code, Section 16, 

 requiring the court to order other parties brought in where 

 a complete determination cannot be had without their presence. 

 McLean, Water Com'r v. Farmers Highline Canal & Reser- 

 voir Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 98 Pacific 16. 



To "FURNISH" is TO DELIVER WATER. 



. A lease provided that "party of the first part agrees to 

 furnish water sufficient to irrigate land above described; said 

 water to come from an artesian well located on land." Held, 

 that the word "furnish" was used in the sense of "deliver" 

 that is, to provide with the right of possession and use and 

 the covenant was not complied with where the lessor had a 

 well dug and the contractor locked it so that the lessee could 

 not get water therefrom without breaking the lock, and 

 thereby incurring danger of litigation, or by bringing legal 

 proceedings. Smith v. Hicks. Supreme Court of New Mex- 

 ico. 98 Pacific 138. 



DUTY TO DELIVER WATER ON LAND. 



Under the contract of plaintiff, an irrigation company 

 with defendants, lessees of land from L., to use its best en- 

 deavors to furnish enough water through its canals and 

 laterals to properly irrigate the land, in the absence of any 

 understanding or agreement that it was defendants' duty to 

 furnish laterals to connect the land with the canal, or to keep 

 the lateral of L. in repair, it was the duty of plaintiff to fur- 

 nish facilities for delivering the water on the land; and it 

 was not enough to turn in into the lateral of L., insufficient 

 from defects and want of repair to take it to the land Sisk 

 v. Gravity Canal Co. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 133 

 Southwestern 195. 



RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES. 



The fact that a party has located a water right and filed 

 his notice thereof in accordance with law does not give him 

 any right to build ditches and canals across the lands of 

 others until he has acquired the easement and right of way 

 therefore either by purchase or condemnation. The ownership 

 of a water right does not necessarily imply that the owner- 

 ship of the ditch. through which the water flows is vested in 

 the same person. The ownership of the ditch and the owner- 

 ship of a water right for water to flow through such ditch 

 may exist in different parties. Swank v. Sweetwater Irriga- 

 tion 6- Power Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 98 Pacific 297. 



