THE IERIGATION AGE. 



309 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



DEDICATION OF WATER. 



Where water has been delivered to lands under a rental 

 and distribution, and has been used and applied by the land- 

 owner under such rental for the purposes of raising crops, 

 the right to such use becomes a dedication within the mean- 

 ing of section 4 of article 15 of the Constitution, and the 

 user and consumer is entitled to the continued use thereafter 

 on payment of the rental rates established in conformity 

 with law. Niday v. Barker. Supreme Court of Idaho. 101 

 Pacific 254. 



PRESUMPTION THAT CANAL COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT 



WATER. 



The fact that a canal company has furnished and deliv- 

 ered water to a consumer for the purpose of raising crops 

 so as to amount to a dedication of the use within contem- 

 plation of the provision of section 4 of article 15 of the Con- 

 stitution raises the prima facie presumption that the company 

 so furnishing and delivering water had that quantity of water 

 over and above the amount required and previously appro- 

 priated and dedicated to other users and consumers from the 

 same canal. Niday v. Barker. Supreme Court of Idaho. 101 

 Pacific 254. 

 WATER RIGHTS. 



Where the evidence shows that any rights of plaintiffs to 

 the use of water from a city irrigation ditch are based on a 

 contract, a decree that plaintiffs are owners by appropria- 

 tion of a certain quantity of water, and that defendants must 

 turn the same out of the city ditch, so that it will reach 

 plaintiff's water box, is erroneous. City and County of Den- 

 ver v. Walker. Supreme Court of Colorado. 101 Pacific 348. 

 EASEMENT IN IRRIGATING DITCH. 



Where one having an easement in the use of an irrigat- 

 ing ditch appurtenant to his 80-acre estate, over which suffi- 

 cient water had been distributed by means of temporary 

 channels, divided the estate, and conveyed a 10-acre tract 

 not attingent to the ditch, together with the appurtenant one- 

 eighth interest in the water right, the easement became ap- 

 purtenant to the tract conveyed, the grantee's right being one 

 arising in grant and founded upon the conditions existing 

 when he purchased ; and, if, in the enjoyment of such ease- 

 ment, it became proper to carry a ditch to the 10 acres over 

 any portion of the original estate, such estate became the 

 servient tenement for this purpose ; the single restriction upon 

 the method of enjoyment being that the extension ditch 

 should be constructed so as to create the least practical in- 

 terference with the freehold of the servient tenement. Tarpey 

 v. Lynch. Supreme Court of California. 101 Pacific 10. 

 SALE OF WATER. 



Where a party is entitled to water from a ditch com- 

 pany, and does everything that the Constitution and laws of 

 the state require him to do in order to get it, the water 

 company is bound to deliver him the water, and cannot re- 

 quire him to sign a special contract binding him to do 

 things which the law does not require him to do in order to 

 get the water. Green v. Byers. Supreme Court of Idaho. 

 101 Pacific 79. 

 DIVERSION USE OF DAM. 



A riparian owner having a right to a part of the water 

 of a stream may change the flow by a dam on his own prop- 

 erty, if he does not thus divert more water than he is en- 

 titled to. Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin. Supreme 

 Court of California. 100 Pacific 874. 



IRRIGATION RIGHTS. 



Ah irrigation company, whose incorporatbrs and stock- 

 holders were owners of the water for irrigation, acquired 

 either by prescription or as riparian owners, may maintain 

 an action to quiet title to such water as against an upper 

 riparian owner. /4rro;ya Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin, Su- 

 preme Court of California. 100 Pacific 874. 

 VALIDITY OF IRRIGATION BONDS UNDER WRIGHT ACT. 



Under Wright Act (St. 1887, p. 35, c. 34) Sec. 15, fixing 

 the term for which bonds of an irrigation district shall run. 



bonds fixing a shorter or longer term of payment would be 

 invalid. Stowell v. Rialto Irr. Dist. Supreme Court of 

 California. 100 Pacific 248. 



RIGHT OF WAY. 



One who has not acquired a right of way for an irriga- 

 tion canal over the public lands of the United States prior 

 to their entry as a homestead, must arrange for such right 

 of way with the entryman or take proper proceedings to ap- 

 propriate the land for that purpose. Rasmussen v. Blust. 

 Supreme Court of Nebraska. 120 Northwestern 184. 



POLLUTION OF WATERCOURSE. 



Where defendant built dams across bayous on his land 

 for irrigating purposes, and, after the water which had risen 

 on the lands of others receded, a disagreeable smell arose, 

 though no intent to produce such smell was shown, a crim- 

 inal prosecution would not lie. Stacy v. State. Court of 

 Criminal Anneals of Texas. 114 Southwestern 807. 

 RIGHT TO SUE FOR POLLUTION OF STREAM. 



The owner of arid agricultural lands, having a right to 

 use the water of a river for irrigation purposes, has such an 

 interest in the water different from that of the general public 

 as entitles him to maintain an action to restrain deposits of 

 mineral debris in streams tributary to such river, which 

 would render the water unfit for use. Arizona Copper Co., 

 Ltd., v. Gillespie. Supreme Court of Arizona. 100 Pacific 

 465. 

 VENDOR'S LIABILITY. 



The original owner of land for which water was ap- 

 propriated is not liable, in an action by a purchaser of one of 

 the tracts into which the land was divided to recover for 

 wrongful diversion of water, for shortage of water in the 

 natural stream, nor because of that shortage for an insufficient 

 supply to irrigate such tract, nor for wrongful acts of 

 others. Booth v. Trager. Supreme Court of Colorado. 99 

 Pacific 60. 

 ESTOPPEL OF DITCH LICENSE. 



Where defendant's officers, knowing that plaintiff's as- 

 signors intended to lay out an irrigation canal across de- 

 fendant's land, assented to, aided, and encouraged the per- 

 formance of the work, on which plaintiff's assignors expended 

 considerable money, defendant was thereafter estopped to 

 deny the granting of a parol license for such canal. Miller 

 & Lux v. Kern County Land Co. Supreme Court of Cal- 

 ifornia. 99 Pacific 179. 

 PRIOR APPROPRIATORS NOT USING ALL WATER . 



It is the policy of the law to prevent the waste of water ; 

 and, when prior appropriators of a canal are not using all 

 of the water to which they are entitled, the canal company 

 may supply such water to any other applicant therefor, but 

 by so doing such applicant does not become vested with a 

 right which can in any manner interfere with the right of 

 the prior appropriator. Gerber v. Nampa 6- Meridian Irr. 

 Dist. Supreme Court of Idaho. 100 Pacific 80. 

 RIGHT TO SUPPLY OF WATER. 



Under the provisions of section 4, article 15, of the 

 constitution of Idaho, providing for the sale, rental, or dis- 

 tribution of water, and also providing that such sale, rental, 

 or distribution when once made shall be deemed an exclusive 

 dedication to such use, it was not intended to compel a 

 canal company that had already sufficient customers to use 

 all of the water the capacity of its canal would carry to 

 perpetually furnish water to anyone to whom it had fur- 

 nished water at times when its regular customers did not 

 require it. Gerber v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 100 Pacific 80. 

 SALE OF IRRIGATION BONDS. 



Wright Act (St. 1887, p. 36, c. 34), Sec. 16, authorizes 

 irrigation district boards to sell bonds from time to time, 

 to raise money to construct canals and works, to acquire 

 property and rights, and otherwise to fully carry out the 

 purposes of the act, and declares that such sales shall be 

 to the highest responsible bidder, except that no bonds shall 

 be sold for less than 90 per cent of their face value; and 

 section 12 provides that the board may acquire by purchase 

 or condemnation lands and waters and other property neces- 

 sary to construct, use, supply, repair and improve its canal 

 or works, including canals and works constructed, and being 

 constructed by private owners. Held, that where an irriga- 

 tion district contracted with a land and water company 



