244 



THE IBBIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



APPROPRIATION OF SUBTERRANEAN WATERS. 



One may sink on his own land such wells as he needs, 

 though in so doing he may dry up his neighbor's well, pro- 

 vided he does not act maliciously, or use the water unneces- 

 sarily. Long v. Louisville & N. R. Co. Court of Appeals 

 of Kentucky, 107 Southwestern 203. 



RIGHTS IN ARTIFICIAL WATERCOURSE. 



The mere fact that a watercourse was artificially dug 

 did not necessarily prevent the existence of rights in it, after 

 a long time, like those pertaining to a natural watercourse. 

 Stimson v. Inhabitants of Brookline. Supreme Judicial 

 Court of Massachusetts, 83 Northeastern 893. 



DECREE ESTABLISHING PRIORITY CA-NNOT BE ATTACKED. 



A statutory decree establishing priorities to the use of 

 water for irrigation is res adjudicata as to the volume cf 

 water awarded to a particular ditch, and cannot be attacked 

 collaterally. Alamosa Creek Canal Co. v. Nelson. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 1112. 



IRRIGATION BONDS. 



The legality of the formation of an irrigation district, 

 and the proposed issue of bonds of said district for the con- 

 struction or purchase of a canal system, are not affected 

 by the fact that the canal system of said district may water 

 lands outside of said district. Settlers Irr. Dist. v. Settlers 

 Canal Co. Supreme Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 829. 



CONDEMNATION FOR IRRIGATION. 



Under Const, Art. 3, Sec. 15, the flooding of land by 

 a dam erected for the purpose of supplying electric power 

 to mines and smelters and to the public generally, and for 

 supplying water for irrigation purposes, is for a public use, 

 authorizing condemnation of such land. Spratt v. Helena 

 Power Transmission Co. Supreme Court of Montana, 94 

 Pacific 631. 



DEFENSE TO DIVERSION. 



Where a senior seeks to enjoin a junior appropriator 

 of water from diverting the same by an irrigation ditch, 

 and defendant seeks to avoid the same on the ground that 

 if the diversion is restrained the plaintiff will derive no 

 benefit, such defense must be established by clear and satis- 

 factory evidence. Alamosa Creek Canal Co. v. Nelson. Su- 

 preme Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 1112. 



PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS TO WATER. 



Satisfactory proof of a continuous, open, notorious, and 

 uninterrupted use of waters on lands for irrigation /or five 

 years, when the use is of such a character as to indicate that 

 the same is being exercised in hostility to the right of any 

 person to interfere with the exercise, is sufficient proof of a 

 claim of right to use it, sufficient to ripen into a right by 

 prescription. Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Ashcroft. Su- 

 preme Court of California, 94 Pacific 613. 



PARTITION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



Tenants in common of land bordering on a stream and 

 severally in possession of particular tracts thereof, subse- 

 quently allotted to them by a partition decree, jointly con- 

 structed a ditch from the stream across one of the tracts, 

 and diverted water on their tracts for irrigation. The par- 

 tition decree did not mention the ditch nor refer to water 

 rights. Held, that under Civ. Code, Sec. 1104, providing 

 that a transfer of real property passes all easements attached 

 thereto, etc., an easement in the tract over which the ditch 

 was constructed for the benefit of the other tracts passed 

 under the decree as appurtenant to the latter tracts to the 

 extent that the ditch was at the time of the decree obviously 

 and permanently used to irrigate the tracts, and to such 

 part of the tracts as had been actually irrigated from it. 

 Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Ashcroft. Supreme Court of 

 California, 94 Pacific 613. 



ORGANIZATION OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 



Where an irrigation district has been organized in ac- 

 cordance with the irrigation law of this state, and has voted 

 to issue bonds for the construction or purchase of a canal 

 system, the fact that said system will supply and water lands 

 outside of the district does not render said district or the 

 proposed issue of the bonds invalid. Settlers Irr. Dist. v. 

 Settlers Canal Co. Supreme Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 829. 



SUIT TO ESTABLISH PRIORITIES. 



In a suit between the appropriates of the waters of a 

 stream involving the rights and priorities of the several 

 appropriators, the users and consumers of water under a 

 canal that has appropriated water for the purpose of sale, 

 rental, or distribution are not necessary and indispensable 

 parties to the action, and a decree in such case is valid and 

 binding as between all the parties to the action. Farmers 

 Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 761. 



APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 



Interference by defendants, prior appropriators of water, 

 with the dam of plaintiffs, junior appropriators, by which 

 water was diverted to plaintiffs' lands for irrigation, held 

 properly enjoined, the evidence sustaining findings that plain- 

 tiffs had not diverted any water to which defendants were 

 entitled as prior appropriators, even if a prior decree was res 

 judicata, or showing that, as the dam was allowed to be 

 maintained, as much water would reach defendants' land as 

 though there were no dam. Fuller v. Sharp. Supreme Court 

 of Utah, 94 Pacific 813. 



IRRIGATING OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT. 



Where bonds of an irrigation district have been author- 

 ized by vote of the qualified electors of said district, and 

 the benefits accruing from such works and the costs of such 

 works are apportioned and distributed to the lands in said 

 district, and said district and its officers have acted in said 

 matter wholly with reference to the land within the boun- 

 daries of said district, the fact that the canal system or the 

 works supply water to irrigate lands outside of the irriga- 

 tion district does not affect the validity of the proposed issue 

 of bonds. Settlers Irr. Dist. v. Settlers Canal Co. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 829. 



INJURY FROM DIVERSION. 



Where the evidence, in an action to enjoin a diversion 

 of water from a stream from which plaintiffs irrigated their 

 land, showed that the stream was dry part of the year, and 

 that when the water began to flow it took several weeks 

 to reach plaintiffs' land, owing to the sandy bottom of the 

 bed which must necessarily become saturated before any 

 water would flow over it, a diversion by defendants would 

 postpone the time required to reach plaintiffs, and result in 

 their injury, since they were entitled to have the stream 

 maintained in its natural state. Huffner v. Sawday. Su- 

 preme Court of California, 94 Pacific 424. 



RIGHT OF WAY FOR IRRIGATION CANALS. 



Under the provisions of Sundry Civil Appropriation Act 

 Cong. Aug. 30, 1890, c. 837, 26 Stat. 391 [U. S. Comp. St. 

 1901, p. 1570], which provides "that in all patents for lands 

 hereafter taken up under any of the land laws of the United 

 States, or on entries or claims validated by this act, west of 

 the one hundredth meridian, it shall be expressed that there 

 is reserved from the land in said patent described a right of 

 way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority 

 of the United States," the word "constructed," as there used, 

 has a general reference and application to ditches or canals 

 constructed by the authority of the United States, without 

 reference to the time of such construction. Under the pro- 

 visions of the act above quoted, it was the evident intention 

 of Congress to reserve perpetually to the government an ease- 

 ment and right of way through and over any and all lands 

 west of the one hundredth meridian that the government might 

 grant to settlers and purchasers subsequent to the passage of 

 the act, and to thereby reserve the easement and right of way 

 for the construction, maintenance, and operation of any ditches 

 and canals the government may construct at any time in the 

 future for the irrigation and reclamation of arid lands. 

 Green v. WilMte. Supreme Court of Idaho. 93 Pacific 971. 



