THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



55 



nuisance, and one who maintains it or permits water to un- 

 necessarily flow from such well, or to go to waste, to be guilty 

 of misdemeanor, defining an artesian well to be an artificial 

 opening in the ground through which water naturally flows 

 from subterranean sources to the surface of the ground, and 

 defining waste to be permitting the flow from an artesian well 

 to run into a bay, pond, or channel, unless used thereafter for 

 the beneficial purposes of irrigation or domestic use, or onto 

 land, unless it be used for irrigating it or for domestic use, 

 or the propagation of fish. 



Ex parte Elam. Court of Appeal, 2d District California, 91 

 Pacific 811. 



APPROPRIATION OF WATER.- 



Where plaintiffs claimed that S. had appropriated the 

 water of a spring and had deeded the same to them and 

 sought an injunction perpetually enjoining defendant from in- 

 terfering therewith, plaintiffs' right to the water was limited 

 to the amount beneficially appropriated, so that the jury hav- 

 ing found that S. apropriated 20 gallons a day, plaintiffs were 

 only entitled to that amount and could not restrain defend- 

 ant's use of the excess. 



Berry v. Equitable Gold Mining Co. Supreme Court of 

 Nevada, 91 Pacific 537. 



PERCOLATIONS RIGHTS OF ADJOINING LAND- 

 OWNERS. 

 Percolating waters may be developed by a tunnel and 



conducted away from land, as against owners of adjoining 



lands, where the waters would otherwise in their natural flow 



sink into the ground and be lost. 



Cohen v. La Canada Land & Water Co. Supreme Court 



of California, 91 Pacific 584. 



DIVISION OF WATER. 



Plaintiffs and defendant owned adjoining land. A creek 

 rose from a spring on defendant's land and flowed through 

 the same and through about three-fourths of the length of 

 plaintiffs' land when it was absorbed. Defendant had never 

 diverted more than one miners' inch of the water, and his 

 land contained only three acres and a fraction that was irriga- 

 ble and adapted to cultivation by means of such water, while 

 plaintiffs' land contained about 2,000 acres, fifty of which was 

 adapted to cultivation and susceptible of irrigation from the 

 creek. Held, that a decree vesting in defendant sufficient water 

 to supply his pipe and dividing the balance of the flow so that 

 defendant should have the entire flow for one day out of 

 every twenty-one days, and that plaintiffs should have the 

 balance, was a proper division. 



Gutierrez v. Wege. Supreme Court of California, 91 

 Pacific Reporter 395. 



OVERFLOW DAMAGES. 



A complaint alleging that defendant owned and operated 

 a canal through which water was conducted for irrigation 

 purposes, and, in connection therewith, at a place near plain- 

 tiffs land, a headgate, that the water washed out the headgate 

 and portions of the bank and overflowed plaintiff's land, and 

 that the damage thus caused was due to defendant's gross and 

 willful negligence in failing to properly construct the canal 

 and headgate, and in failing to properly maintain the head- 

 gate and to control the water in the canal, was sufficiently 

 specific as to the manner in which defendant was guilty of 

 the negligence charged. 



Dennis v. Crocker-Huffman Land & Water Co. Court of 

 Appeal, Third District, California, 91 Pacific Reporter 425. 



IRRIGATION APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 



Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. Sec. 4156, declares that the 

 right given to condemn the use of water shall not extend 

 further than to the riparian rights of persons to the natural 

 flow of water through lands on or abutting on streams or 

 lakes as the same exists at common law, and is not intended 

 to allow the taking of water from any person that is used 

 by the person himself for irrigation or that is needed for that 

 purpose. Held, that the word "needed" as so used meant 

 water necessary to irrigate the land of a littoral or riparian 

 owner which he has under irrigation at the time his rights 

 are sought to be condemned, or which he intends to and will 

 place under irrigation within a reasonable time, and that, as 

 to such water, no condemnation could be had. 



State ex rel. Liberty Lake Irr. Co. v. Superior Court for 

 Spokane County. Supreme Court of Washington, 91 Pacific 

 968. 



Overland 

 Limited 



CROSSES 



Sierra 

 Great Salt Lake 



BY DAYLIGHT 



San Francisco in 3 Days 



Electric Lighted Fast Fly- 

 ing Cross-Country Train- 

 Luxuriously Equipped. 



Pullman Drawing Room, 

 Stateroom, Vestibuled 

 Sleeping Cars. 



Careful and Attentive Din- 

 ing Service. 



Parlor Observatoin Car 

 with Library and Cafe, 

 Ladies' Reading Room, 

 Gentlemen's Smoking 

 Room. 



Daily News Bulletins, Lat- 

 est Papers and Magazines. 



Southern 

 Pacific 



