THE IRKIGATION AGE. 



35 



PRESCRIPTION. 



In order to claim the use of an irrigtation ditch across 

 defendant's land by adverse user, plaintiff's use thereof must 

 have been continuous and uninterrupted for five years prior 

 to the commencement of his action to enjoin the obstruction 

 of his user. Silva v. Hawn. Court of Appeal, Third District, 

 California. 102 Pacific 952. 



DIVERSION OF PERCOLATING WATERS. 



One having a right to take a definite quantity of water 

 from a basin of permeable material saturated therewith, and 

 not composing part of any stream, may change his place of 

 diversion, so long as the total amount of water taken is not 

 thereby increased. Barton v. Riverside Water Company. Su- 

 preme Court of California. 101 Pacific 790. 



ESTOPPEL TO RETURN TO NATURAL CHANNEL, 



The proprietor of a stream who diverts it into an arti- 

 ficial channel, and continues such change for a time exceed- 

 ing the statute of limitations, is estopped, as against a per- 

 son making a beneficial use of the water, to return it to its 

 natural channel to the latter's injury. Hollett v. Davis. 

 Supreme Court of Washington. 103 Pacific 423. 



SEEPAGE FROM IRRIGATION DITCH. 



The injuries to land from water seeping from a properly 

 constructed irrigation ditch which is intended to be per- 

 manent constitutes a single cause of action, and as affected 

 bv the statutes of limitations accrues at the beginning of the 

 injury. Middelkamp v. Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Co. Su- 

 preme Court of Colorado. 103 Pacific 280. 



CONTEST OF WATER PERMIT NOTICE. 



Notice of contest sent by registered mail to the last 

 known post office address of the persons or corporation to 

 whom a water permit has been issued of the time of hearing 

 such contest before the state engineer is sufficient notice and 

 due process. Speer v. Stephenson, State Engineer. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 102 Pacific 365. 



WATERS SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT ONTO WATERSHED. 



Where, after plaintiff appropriated waters from a stream, 

 defendants brought onto their lands in the watershed of such 

 stream waters from another watershed, such appropriation 

 did not prevent defendants impounding the overflow or waste 

 of such waters after use on their lands, and using it on other 

 land. Miller v. Wheeler. Supreme Court of Washington. 

 103 Pacific 641. 



DUTY OF WATER. 



The amount of water that a water user and consumer 

 has been in the habit of using and applying to his lands can- 

 not be accepted as the true test of the duty of water, but the 

 question to be determined in such case is the amount actually 

 necessary for the useful or beneficial purpose to which the 

 water is to be applied. Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Com- 

 pany v. Riverside Irrigation District, Ltd. Supreme Court of 

 Idaho. 102 Pacific 481. 



RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



A riparian owner having a right to take water for irri- 

 gation from a stream may do so from any convenient point on 

 the stream, whether at a point on his own land or the land 

 of another, so long as the taking does not injuriously affect 

 the rights of riparian owners between the point of diversion 

 and the land to be irrigated. Turner v. James Canal Com- 

 pany. Supreme Court of California. 99 Pacific 520. 



SPRINGS. 



1. Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., Sec. 4114 (Pierce's 

 Code, Sec. 5829), providing that the person on whose lands 

 seepage or spring water first arises shall have a prior right 

 to such waters if capable of being used on his lands. does not 

 apply to springs which form the fountain heads of a living 

 water course; the waters of which stream having been pre- 

 viously appropriated by another. Miller v. Wheeler. Supreme 

 Court of Washington. 103 Pacific 641. 



IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. 



The statute of this state authorizes the board of county 

 commissioners to include within the boundaries of an irriga- 

 tion district all lands, which in their natural state would be 

 benefited by irrigation, and are susceptible of irrigation by 

 one system; and this is true regardless of the question as to 

 what particular use is being made of any particular tract or 

 piece of land at the time the district is organized. Oregon 

 Short Line Railroad Company v. Pioneer Irrigation District. 

 Supreme Court of Idaho. 102 Pacific 904. 



ASSESSMENT OF RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY. 



The fact that the officials of an irrigation district neglect 

 to assess the right of way and station grounds of a railroad 

 company for certain years is not a reason why such right of 

 way and station grounds are not subject to assessment by 

 said district; and the company cannot defeat a future assess- 

 ment by reason of the fact that its property was not assessed 

 for any particular year or years prior to the assessment made. 

 Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Pioneer Irrigation District. 

 Supreme Court of Idaho. 102 Pacific 904. 



RIGHTS TO WATER. 



Where, in a suit to enjoin defendant from interfering 

 with the flow of water in plaintiff's ditch, defendant by 

 answer made no claim to any water nor title to any land, 

 and plaintiffs claimed no definite quantity of water, and did 

 not prove the amount to which they were entitled, a decree 

 attempting to establish plaintiff's title to a definite amount 

 of water, and to settle the rights of the parties as to the 

 water flowing in the main ditch, was erroneous. Simpson v. 

 Harrah. Supreme Court of Oregon. 103 Pacific 58. 



EVIDENCE OF DUTY OF WATER. 



The duty of water for the successful irrigation of lands 

 cannot be established by guesswork and hearsay evidence or 

 by witnesses who have never measured water applied to lands 

 and have never seen water measured, and have made no tests 

 in reference thereto, and do not know the size of a stream 

 and the grade or pressure necessary to carry a given number 

 of inches of water as measured under the irrigation law. 

 Farmers' Cooperative Ditch Company v. Riverside Irrigation 

 District, Ltd. Supreme Court of Idaho. 102 Pacific 481. 



ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS. 



Mandamus lies to compel a corporation, organized to 

 secure a supply of water for irrigation purposes and dis- 

 tribute the same among its stockholders for use on lands 

 owned by them, to deliver water to a member for use on his 

 land for irrigation, for he has no adequate remedy at law, 

 and his rights to have water furnished on his land is an 

 inseparable adjunct to his membership, and a plain duty 

 rests on the corporation to furnish the water. Miller v. Im- 

 perial Water Co., No. 8. Supreme Court of California. 103 

 Pacific 227. 



WASTE WATER. 



Where water is claimed as the "waste" waters from the 

 farm of an adjacent water user, all the water in excess of that 

 caused by and resulting from seepage is but the quantity di- 

 verted by such near-by appropriator in excess of his needs, 

 and accordingly in excess of the quantity to which he may be 

 entitled, and the person receiving and applying the excess to 

 a beneficial use acquires a vested right therein, as would an 

 appropriator of any other surplus water, the inception of 

 which right, like that of any other appropriator, dates from 

 the first steps taken to provide for its use. Hough v. Porter. 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. 98 Pacific 1083. 



ACQUIESENCE IN PRESCRIPTION RlGHT. 



In order to establish a right to use an irrigation ditch 

 by prescription, the right must have been asserted with the 

 knowledge and acauiescence of the landowner, but "acquies- 

 cence," which commonly means an affirmative permission 

 or consent, in addition to knowledge of the hostile claim, 

 need not be shown independently of knowledge ; and, if the 

 owner has knowledge thereof which the law imputed to him, 

 and takes no steps to prevent {he adverse claimant from his 

 continuous enjoyment of the right, he is deemed to have 

 acauiesced in such use. Silva v. Hawn. Court of Appeal. 

 Third District, California. 102 Pacific 952. 



