1 



116 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



CONSUMER CAN COMPEL COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT HEADGATE. 



Where it is practical for two or more consumers to draw 

 water from a canal for the irrigation of their lands through 

 one headgate, that may be done, but where a water consumer 

 cannot thus obtain water he is entitled, under Mills' Ann. St., 

 Section 2288, to compel a water company to construct a neces- 

 sary headgate at the expense of the water consumer. 



Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado, 92 Pacific 946. 



LAND ALREADY UNDER DITCH EXEMPT FROM OPERATION OF 

 STATUTE. 



The provisions of sections 46-53, inclusive, art. 3, c. 93a, 

 Conip. St. 1903, are not applicable to a case where land is at 

 the time of the organization of the irrigation district under a 

 ditch already constructed of sufficient capacity to water the 

 same, such land being expressly exempted from the operation 

 of said law by the proviso in section 1 of said article 3. 



State v. Several Parcels of Land. Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska, 114 Northwestern 283. 

 IRRIGATION DITCHES. 



The proviso in section 1, art. 3, c. 93a, Comp. St. 1903, 

 that "where ditches or canals have been constructed before the 

 passage of this act, of sufficient capacity to water .the land 

 thereunder, for which the water taken in such ditches is appro- 

 priated, such ditches and franchises and the land subject to be 

 watered thereby shall be exempt from the operation of this 

 law," is for the benefit and protection of the owner of such 

 land, as well as for the owners of such irrigation ditches. 



State v. Several Parcels of Land. Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska, 114 Northwestern 283. 



POWERS OF COUNTY BOARD. 



In the organization of an irrigation district the judgment 

 cf the county board as to those matters which are by the stat- 

 ute committed to its consideration, investigation and determina- 

 tion may not be collaterally attacked, but the question whether 

 land is under a ditch already constructed of sufficient capacity 

 to water the same is not by the statute left to the adjudication 

 of the county board. The proviso in section 1, art. 3, c. 93a, 

 Comp. St. 1903, expressly exempts such lands from the opera- 

 tion of the law. 



State v. Several Parcels of Land. Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska, 114 Northwestern 283. 



FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE DITCH. 



Where, by the terms of a contract for work to be done for 

 a reservoir company, the company, upon inability of the con- 

 tractor to perform, reserved the right to complete the work 

 and -deduct the cost thereby incurred from the total amount to 

 be paid the contractor, the company, upon being obliged to 

 complete the work, was entitled to the amount it cost to finish 

 the work, which was not necessarily the amount paid the per- 

 sons who completed it or the amount entered upon the com- 

 pany's books as the cost thereof. 



Hottel v. Poudre Valley Reservoir Co. Supreme Court of 

 Colorado, 92 Pacific 918. 



BEGINNING PAYMENT FOR WATER UNDER IRRIGATION CON- 

 TRACT. 



While parties to an irrigation contract could agree that 

 payment should begin when the irrigation company had com- 

 plied with its contract and was ready to furnish water, it was 

 equally competent for them to agree that payments should 

 begin only when water was actually used. In a suit on a writ- 

 ten contract for furnishing water, in which contract the time 

 when the first payment was to fall due was left blank, defend- 

 ant could show by parol testimony that payment was not due 

 until he should require and use water in irrigating his lands. 



Fresno Canal 6-Jrrigation Co. v. Hart. Supreme Court 

 of California, 92 Pacific 1010. 

 CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO A HEADGATE. 



A water company conveyed water rights by deed, stipu- 

 lating that the grantee might relocate the rights, providing 

 location could be made on land lying nearer the headgate of 

 the main canal, and without detriment to, or any liability of, 

 the company. A third person acquired a half of an eighty-acre 

 water right. This land was lying nearer the headgate of the 

 main canal than any of the land which had theretofore been 

 irrigated, and the land could not be irrigated by water taken 

 from the main canal through any existing headgate. Held, 

 that he was entitled to a headgate as against the objection that 

 a multiplicity of headgates weakened the canal and increased 

 the expense of maintaining it, since the detriment or liability 



mentioned in the contract meant detriment or liability out of 

 the ordinary; especially when considered in connection with 

 Mills' Ann. St., section 2288, requiring owners of any canal 

 used for irrigating purposes to construct the necessary outlets 

 for a proper delivery of the water to persons having right to 

 the use of the water, etc. 



Downey v. Twin Lakes Land & Water Co. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado, 92 Pacific 946. 

 IRRIGATION COMPUTATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



A contract for a sale of land also provided for a convey- 

 ance of four shares of water to July 1 in each year, and two 

 shares after that date. Two of the shares which continued 

 after July 1 were first-class rights, and the two shares termi- 

 nating on July 1 were third-class rights. Thereafter, an equali- 

 zation of all the rights of the water corporation was had, 

 whereby the first-class rights were increased 5 per cent and 

 the third-class rights reduced 33 1-3 per cent, and the sum of 

 the shares, when so reduced and multiplied by 2, represented 

 the amount of water each owner was entitled to in the corpo- 

 ration. Held, that the shares to which the vendees were 

 entitled under such contract were 6.86 2-3, and not 6 2-3 shares, 

 as found by the trial court. 



Brixen v. Jorgensen. Supreme Court of Utah, 92 Pacific 

 1004. 



A KIND WORD. 



We are in receipt of the following note from one of 

 our old-time subscribers, which speaks for itself: 



1532 South Washington Avenue, 



Denver, Colo., Jan. 24, 1908. 

 The IRRIGATION AGE, Chicago, 111. 



Dear Sirs: Bill received. Please continue to send the 

 AGE, as I can't, it seems, do without it. 

 Yours truly, 



JOHN J. LONG. 



If the IRRIGATION AGE is good for Mr. Long, it 

 is good for you. 



Twin Falls (Idaho) News State Engineer James 

 Stephenson has returned from Butte, where he inspected 

 the reservoir site and source of water supply for the proj- 

 ect which is about to be launched by the Cedar Creek 

 Reservoir & Irrigation Company in the southwestern 

 corner of Twin Falls county. This company will ask for 

 and will undoubtedly receive a Carey act segregation of 

 50,000 acres, of which fully two-thirds is within the bound- 

 aries of this county. The surveys have been completed 

 and the company is prepared to go ahead with construc- 

 tion work so soon as the necessary formalities have been 

 performed. This includes an application to the state land 

 board for the segregation, the state's application to the 

 government and the grant of the latter. Under favorable 

 conditions the formal operation should not take longer 

 than four months as the way is clear and there is nothing 

 to unravel but red tape. The tract to be covered by the 

 Cedar Creek project is to be watered by means of a huge 

 reservoir near Butte, which is between the Salmon river 

 bridge and Three Creek. Mr. Stephenson, who carefully 

 examined the reservoir site, pronounces it one of the best 

 he has seen. It lies in the form of a huge basin, the out- 

 let of which can easily be dammed 





Send $2.50 for The Irrigation Age 

 1 year, and The Primer of Irrigation 



