014 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



CONTRACT FOR IRRIGATION WORKS. 



Where a firm has a contract with the government for 

 the construction of irrigation works, and receives payment 

 from the government on such contract, and turns the 

 money over to a creditor to be applied upon a debt due 

 from such firm to such creditor, and it further appears that 

 a third person made certain advances and loans to such 

 contracting firm to aid them in carrying out their con- 

 tract with the government, the payment made by such 

 firm to its creditor will be deemed a payment by such 

 firm, and not by the person advancing or loaning such 

 money in aiding such firm to carry out said contract. 

 Porter v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. Supreme Court of 

 Idaho. 106 Pacific 299. 



ADVERSE USE. 



Defendant, having diverted the waters of a creek ad- 

 versely to plaintiff under claim of right, and used the same 

 on his land for many years, more than five years before 

 action, sunk several wells in the bed of the stream, from 

 three of which water, to the quantity to which he had 

 previously obtained the right of adverse use, was obtained 

 Plaintiff had knowledge of such use, and knew that the 

 flow in the creek immediately decreased, and by reason- 

 able inquiry could have ascertained that the decrease was 

 caused by the wells. Held, that plaintiff's right to object 

 to defendant's use of the wells was barred by limitations. 

 Hudson v. Dailcy. Supreme Court of California. 105 Pa- 

 cific 748. 



DISCHARGE ON ADJOINING LAND. 



A person may not, except in the exercise of the 

 power of eminent domain, lawfully concentrate surface 

 waters and discharge them through an artificial ditch in 

 unusual quantities upon lands of an adjacent owner, to 

 his damage. Kane v. Bozvdcu. Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska. 123 Northwestern 94. 



SALE OF WATER. 



Where there was no assent by plaintiff to the use of 

 water by defendant, a notice by plaintiff forbidding the 

 use of the water, and demanding a certain sum for every 

 day the notice was violated, was not a proposition to sell 

 water at that rate. IVessling v. A T ye. Supreme Court of 

 California. 105 Pacific 409. 



APPROPRIATION QUANTITY.- 



The beneficial use and the needs of the appropria- 

 tion of water for irrigation, and not the capacity of the 

 ditches, or quantity first run through them, is the measure 

 and limit of the right of the appropriators. Whited v. 

 Cai'tn. Supreme Court of Oregon. 105 Pacific 390. 



USE OF WATER. 



A lower riparian owner is not entitled to water which 

 has been stored by an upper owner while the stream was 

 running, unless such water also included water which the 

 latter caught and stored by entirely obstructing the flow 

 while the stream was running, to the former's damage. 

 Stacy v. Delery. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 122 

 Southwestern 300. 



UNLAWFULLY DETAINING WATER. . 



Where a lower riparian owner, suing an upper owner 

 for unlawfully appropriating the water of a stream, al- 

 leged that the upper owner impounded the water of one 

 of the forks of the stream, and the evidence showed that 

 the damages complained of were caused by dams on the 

 other fork of the stream, there could be no recovery, be- 

 cause the evidence did not support the petition. Stacy v. 

 Delery. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 122 South- 

 western 300. 



LIMIT OF APPROPRIATION TO PARTICULAR LANDS. 



Where an owner relied for his water rights on a di* 

 version made through a particular ditch, he is limited in 

 his use to the lands under that ditch which may be irri- 

 gated by water diverted through it or other ditches under 

 it, and, while not necessarily confined to the same specific 

 tracts upon which the water has theretofore been applied, 

 he is restricted to acreage upon which the appropriation 

 was perfected at the time of the inception of the water 



rights of other claimants which did not exceed the num- 

 ber of acres previously owned by him. Whited v. Cavin. 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. 105 Pacific 396. 



APPROPRIATION FORFEITURE. 



Where application for an appropriation of water is 

 made to the state engineer according to Laws 1903, pp. 

 88-100, c. 100, Sees. 1-42, giving him large discretionary 

 powers with authority to extend the time that he has fixed 

 for completing works required to perfect the appropriation 

 and work is commenced within the statutory time and 

 prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence, he may 

 extend the time if not beyond the final limit fixed by the 

 statute, although the application therefor is made after 

 the time first fixed by him has expired. Pool v. Utah 

 County Light & Power Co. Supreme Court of Utah. 105 

 Pacific 289. 



APPROPRIATION <OF UNUSED WATER. 



Where an original mill race appropriation was not needed 

 by its owner for use, and was in fact not used, it was subject 

 to appropriation and use by one diverting the water from the 

 stream above its return point to the river. Windsor Reservoir 

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

 rado. 109 Pacific 425. 



INJURY BY FLOWAGE. 



Defendant corporation undertook to divert water from 

 the Colorado river near the boundary line between Cali- 

 fornia and Mexico through canals for irrigation purposes. 

 It contracted with a Mexican company, which it owned, and 

 with other local irrigation companies which it organized in 

 California, to deliver water to their canals and ditches. It 

 constructed three intakes from the river, two of which were 

 on Mexican territory on land of the Mexican company and 

 nominally under its control, but which were, in fact, con- 

 structed and controlled by defendant. These intakes were 

 so constructed without controlling gates that in a time of 

 flood one of those in Mexico was so enlarged by washing 

 that a large part of the water of the river poured through 

 and passing through canals of the other companies over- 

 flowed and damaged, and finally destroyed the property of 

 complainant situated in the Salton Basin below the level of 

 the river. Held, that having sole control of the intakes, 

 from the improper construction of which the damage resulted, 

 defendant was responsible therefor, and that to a suit to 

 enjoin further flooding and to recover for the damage done 

 the other corporations were not necessary parties. The Sal- 

 ton Sea Cases. California Development Co. v. New Liver- 

 pool Salt Co. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 172 Federal 

 792. 



IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. 



Primarily the duties of water commissioners are to en- 

 force the decrees of the various claimants to and users of 

 water, from a common source, according to their terms, and 

 where several ditches, irrigating by means of laterals out of a 

 common channel, have the same point of diversion, a com- 

 mon headgate, and the same channel for some distance, the 

 commissioners should turn out the water to satisfy the decrees 

 under which the claimants are entitled, and the commissioners 

 cannot refuse to do so on the ground of abandonment, or 

 that the claimant seeks to apply the water decreed to his 

 ditches in a new place, or to settle bona fide disputes as to 

 the relative rights of the use of water under the decrees be- 

 tween the several claimants ; but such questions should be 

 left to proceedings between the claimants. Boulder & Left 

 Hand Ditch Co. v. Hoover, Water Com'r. Supreme Court 

 of Colorado. 110 Pacific 75. 



IRRIGATION DITCHES. 



Const, art. 1, 16 and Laws 1899, c. 131, authorizing the 

 taking of land for irrigation ditches, do not limit the right to 

 owners of land devoid of agricultural value without irrigation. 

 State ex rel Galbraith v. Superior Court of Spokane Coiintv. 

 Supreme Court of Washington. 110 Pacific 429. 



INCREASING ACREAGE. 



Where the acreage irrigated under an appropriation of 

 water has not increased materially for several years, an ap- 

 propriation for additional acreage dates from the increased 

 diversion. Porter v. Pettcngill. Supreme Court of Oregon. 

 110 Pacific 393. 





