THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



513 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



TERMINATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



Revocation of a license to use a ditch does not terminate 

 the licensee's water rights. Ison v. Sturgill. Supreme Court 

 of Oregon. 109 Pacific 579. 

 ADVERSE USER. 



The adverse, i-xcltisive, continuous, and uninterrupted 

 use of water from a stream for 10 years raises a presumption 

 of title against an unasserted right. Ison v. Sturgill. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 109 Pacific 579. 

 RIGHT OF WAY. 



A letter acknowledging a request for a right of way for 

 an irrigation ditch -r,d stating "Go ahead. The more ditches 

 you build, the better it will suit me" granted a right of way, 

 and not a mere revocable license. Shaw v. Protttt. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 109 Pacific 584. 

 RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS. 



The owners of land through which an irrigation ditch was 

 maintained could not take water therefrom nor interfere with 

 the appropriator's use of the water, even if the ditch was main- 

 tained under a revocable license. Shaw v. Pro&tt. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 109 Pacific 584. 



APPROPRIATION. 



When, tor the purpose of diverting water for a beneficial 

 use, a ditch is commenced, and within a reasonable time the 

 work thereon is prosecuted to completion, the water turned 

 into it and applied to the use therein, the right to the appro- 

 priation, to the extent of the quantity diverted and applied, re- 

 lates back to the commencement of the work. Hough v. Por- 

 ter. Supreme Court of Oregon. 98 Pacific 1083. 

 RIGHTS AS TO UNUSED WATER. 



Whenever waters of a mill race appropriation were not in 

 use, or were not needed to operate the mill, and were left in 

 the stream, they were subject to appropriation and use by 

 others during such times, at any point upon the river, either 

 above or below the tail of the mill race, like any other unused 

 or unappropriated waters of the stream. Windsor Reservoir 

 & Canal Co. v. Hoffman Milling Co. Supreme Court of Colo- 

 rado. 109 Pacific 421!. 



VOIDABLE ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHT. 



Though defendants' ditch when a decree was entered ad- 

 judicating water right between them and plaintiffs would 

 carry 3.2 cubic feet a second, and their land if irrigated would 

 require that amount, if they had brought only 80 acres under 

 irrigation so as to require only 1.6 feet a second, a decree ad- 

 judicating to them the right to apply a greater amount was 

 voidable on proper attack. Drach v. Isola. Supreme Court of 

 Colorado. 109 Pacific 748. 

 DAMAGES FOR DIVERSION. 



The venue of a suit for damages for injuries to real estate 



PERCOLATING WATERS. 



Where two or more persons own different tracts under- 

 laid by porous material extending to and communicating with 

 them all, which is saturated with water moving with more or 

 less freedom therein, each has a common and correlative right 

 to the water on his land to the full extent of his needs, if 

 the common supply is sufficient, and to the extent of a reason- 

 able share, if the supply is insufficient for all. Hudson v. 

 Dailey. Supreme Court of California. 105 Pacific 748. 

 SUBTERRANEAN WATERS FEEDING A STREAM. 



Where waters in an underground stratum are in such im- 

 mediate connection with the surface stream as to make them 

 part of the stream, defendant's land overlying the water is 

 riparian to the stream and entitled to riparian rights with 

 reference to such water. Hudson v. Dailey. Supreme Court 

 of California. 105 Pacific 748. 

 WATER RIGHTS. 



One may make an appropriation of water sufficient for the 

 irrigation of land, the cultivation of which is then in contem- 

 plation, and it is not necessary that it all be applied the first 

 year, but it must be put to a beneficial use within a reasonable 

 time, and, when so applied, the appropriation will relate to the 

 date of the diversion or the commencement of the work there- 

 on. Ison v. Sturgill. Supreme Court of Oregon. 109 Pacific 

 579. 



through the diversion of water of a stream, and for an in- 

 junction to restrain the diversion thereof, is not controlled 

 by Const, art. 6, 5, requiring actions to quiet title to real 

 estate to be commenced within the county in which the realty 

 is situated, but is controlled by Code Civ. Proc. 392, subd. 1, 

 requiring an action for injuries to real property to be tried in 

 the county where the real estate is situated, and the suit may 

 be brought in a county though property injured is situated 

 elsewhere. Miller & Lux v. Mac/era Canal & Irrigation Co. 

 Supreme Court of California. 99 Pacific 502. 



RIPARIAN RIGHTS INJUNCTION. 



The flow of the water in a stream was often insufficient 

 to irrigate the land of a riparian owner. The annual rainfall 

 was slight, and, unless irrigated, the land was unfit for culti- 

 vation. Overflow water, occasioned by floods, yearly deposited 

 on the land fertilizing materials, increasing its productiveness 

 and enhancing its \alue. The water overflowing the land was 

 of great benefit to the riparian owner, and, if the flow of the 

 waters was taken away, the land would become arid. Held 

 to show that irreparable injury would result to the riparian 

 owner if the dive.'sion of such waters w_as accomplished, and 

 authorized equity to interfere by injunction restraining such 

 diversion. Miller Pf Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co. 

 Supreme Court of Calif otnia. 99 Pacific 502. 



