THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



thrown across the river near El Moro and the water 

 will be conducted along a ditch to the reservoir. Along 

 a part of the route the natural arroyo will be used to 

 carry the water. The outlet ditch will be twelve or four- 

 teen miles long and will run in a general southeasterly 

 direction to a point near Earl, where it will go under 

 the Santa Fe tracks. Here the laterals will he run over 

 the land. 



It is estimated that about 20,000 acres will be brought 

 under water when these works are finished. The under- 

 taking is capitalized at $300,000. 



Lards to be reclaimed by this system are among the 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



Constructing a Ditch, Showing Steam Shovel in Operation. 



most fertile in southern Colorado. Climatic conditions 

 make it possible to raise nearly any crop desired, and in 

 neighboring districts, where water has already been sup- 

 plied, harvests of grains, produce and fruits are suffi- 

 cient to warrant the most optimistic of predictions for 

 the future of the Model Land and Irrigation company's 

 holdings. 



Stockholders, interested in this project, accord the 

 highest praise to Mr. Read for his organization of the 

 work and its rapid advancement since he has been in 

 control. It is stated that his capacity for overcoming 

 obstacles and steadily pushing the work on this project 

 has brought to him the confidence of capitalists in the 

 entire Trinidad district as well as at Denver, where he 

 is well known. 



With the end of this work almost in view Mr. Read 

 is now turning his attention to other reclamation projects 

 in southern Colorado. Despite the time required for ac- 

 tive work on the Las Animas project he has found oppor- 

 tunity to interest himself in other plans and it can be 

 predicted that the west, as well as the east, will hear 

 of more of his works in the future. 



FISH. 



Water may not be appropriated to fill a series of small 

 reservovirs or lakes in which to propagate fish. Windsor 

 Reservoir & Canal Company v. Lake Supply Ditch Company. 

 Supreme Court of Colorado. 98 Pacific 729. 



To GAIN PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT. 



To gain a prescriptive right to water, the enjoyment of 

 the right must be that of a proprietor, and it must also be 

 adverse. Rhoades v. Barnes. Supreme Court of Washing- 

 ton. 102 Pacific 884. 



RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



The common-law doctrine of riparian rights that the ri- 

 parian proprietor is entitled to a continuous flow of the 

 stream does not obtain in Colorado. Sternberger v. Seaton 

 Mountain Electric Light, Heat & Power Company. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado. 102 Pacific 168. 



ADVERSE USER OF WATER. 



In order to constitute an ownership of a right to use 

 water by adverse user, the use must have been open, notori- 

 ous, continuous, adverse, and exclusive under a claim of 

 right, for the statutory period, which is 10 years. Smith v. 

 Duff. Supreme Court of Montana. 102 Pacific 981. 



CONTINUOUS ADVERSE USE. 



An adverse use of an irrigation ditch during the cropping 

 season only constitutes a "continuous adverse user," as its 

 nonuser when the water is not needed does not interfere with 

 the continuity of use. Silva v. Hawn. Court of Appeal, 

 Third District, California. 102 Pacific 952. 



CONTEST OF WATER PERMIT. 



The act of March 11, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 300), which 

 provides for a contest of a permit issued, and vesting power 

 in the state engineer to cancel such permit, does not vest in 

 the state engineer judicial power. Speer v. Stephenson, State 

 Engineer. Supreme Court of Idaho. 102 Pacific 365. 



DISTURBANCE OF PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT. 



Conceding that a diversion of water from a dam initiated 

 a prescriptive right thereto, it is disturbed by obtaining per- 

 mission to lay pipes across land in question, and take from 

 the dam at a point 300 feet from the first diversion. Rhoades 

 v. Barnes. Supreme Court of Washington. 102 Pacific 884. 



EXCHANGE OF WATER. 



Where a system of exchanges of water between different 

 owners of reservoirs, if put in practice, would necessarily con- 

 vert a junior water right into a senior priority, it could not 

 be sustained. Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company v. Lake 

 Supply Ditch Company. Supreme Court of Colorado. 98 

 Pacific 729. 



WHAT ARE WATERCOURSES. 



Where a stream flows in a continuous current, the fact 

 that the water thereof, on account of the level character of 

 the lands, spreads over a large area, without apparent banks, 

 does not affect its character as a water course. Miller &r Lux 

 v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Company. Supreme Court of 

 California. 99 Pacific 502. 



ADVERSE USER. 



Proof of the mere use of water during the statutory 

 period is not sufficient; it is necessary that during the entire 

 period an action could have been maintained against the party 

 claiming the water by adverse user by the party against whom 

 the claim is made. Smith v. Duff. Supreme Court of Mon- 

 tana. 102 Pacific 981. 



