THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



301 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



RIGHTS OF APPROPRIATORS. 



An appropriates from a stream flowing through his prem- 

 ises has not the right to the use of a surplus for irrigation as 

 against subsequent claimants. Williams v. Altnoiv. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 95 Pacific 200. 



DESERT ENTRY SEPARATE CONVEYANCE OF WATER. 



Water applied to a desert entry for the purpose of re- 

 claiming the same does not become inseparable therefrom, 

 and may be conveyed separate and apart from a conveyance 

 of the land. Village of Hailey v. Riley. Supreme Court of 

 Idaho. 95 Pacific 686. 



CHANGE OF POINT OF DIVERSION. 



A prior appropriator of water for a beneficial use from 

 a stream or other natural source of supply may change the 

 point of diversion or the place of use so long as if does not 



wont to flow. Williams v. Altnow. Supreme Court of Ore- 

 gon. 95 Pacific 200. 



APPROPRIATOR'S RIGHT TO CURRENT. 



An appropriator of a certain quantity of water from a 

 stream does not acquire as an appurtenant to his water loca- 

 tion the right to the current of the stream as a means of 

 operating devices used by him to divert the fater f,rom the 

 stream, nor is such current subject to appropriation as a water 

 right under the Constitution and laws of Idaho. Schodde v. 

 Twin Falls Land and Water Co. Circuit Court of Appeals, 

 Ninth Circuit. 161 Federal 43. 



APPROPRIATION APPLICATION TO BENEFICIAL USE. 



Filing requisite plats and notices of a water appropriation 

 with the clerk and recorder, the commencement and con- 

 struction of a canal with due diligence, and the actual diver- 

 sion of water from a natural stream, unless accompanied by 

 a beneficial use of the water, constitutes merely an inchoate 

 right or interest therein, which is insufficient to bar junior 

 claimants if their beneficial use of the water antedates that 

 of the prior appropriator. Conley v. Dyer. Supreme Court of 

 Colorado. 95 Pacific 304. 



AGREEMENT AS TO DIVERSION. 



Where prior and subsequent locators of the waters of a 





* *. V' ** ' -*? Vli ^ : *~ i? j8S* ***"*"; 



No 5. View of an eighty-acre oat field, Scottsbluff County, Nebraska. 



prejudice the rights of subsequent claimants. Williams v. 

 Altnow. Supreme Court of Oregon. 95 Pacific 200. 



RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP. 



There is no such thing as prior riparian ownership so far 

 as distribution of water for irrigation purposes between ripar- 

 ian owners is concerned ; the rights of a riparian owner to the 

 waters being a variable one, depending on use by other pro- 

 prietors. Hough v. Porter. Supreme Court of Oregon. 95 

 Pacific 732. 



WHAT CONSTITUTES AN APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 



To constitute an appropriation of water there must not 

 only be a diversion from the stream and a carrying of it to 

 the place of use, but it must be beneficially applied, and the 

 measure of appropriation does not depend alone upon the 

 amount diverted and carried, but the amount which is applied 

 to a beneficial use must also be considered. Woods v. Sar- 

 geant. Supreme Court of Colorado. 95 Pacific 932. 



PRIOR APPROPRIATOR MUST PERMIT WATER TO FLOW. 



After the needs of a prior appropriator of water for bene- 

 ficial use as measured by his original appropriation have been 

 supplied, or when the water is not actually required or used 

 by him, it is at the disposal of other and subsequent appro- 

 priators according to their respective rights, and the prior 

 appropriator must permit it to flow down to them as it is 



stream have misunderstandings and differences with refer- 

 ence to the right to divert the waters of a stream and convey 

 them to distant points for use, and they reach ah agreement 

 and understanding whereby each shall be permitted to con- 

 struct his diverting works and ditches, and in reliance thereon 

 they do construct such works and expend money thereon, 

 each will thereafter be estopped from denying the right of 

 the other to divert and use the waters in accordance with 

 such agreement or understanding. Saunders v. Robison. Su- 

 preme Court of Idaho. 95 Pacific 1057. 



DUTY OF WATER COMMISSIONER. 



Where the right of a reservoir company to a proportion 

 of the priorities belonging to a ditch company depended on 

 the ownership of the stock of the ditch company, the water 

 commissioner, in denying this ownership, based his action on 

 a legal ground, and by refusing to turn water into the canal 

 of the ditch company for the use of the irrigation company, 

 which, as he claimed was not entitled thereto, merely dis- 

 charged the duties imposed on him by law, and in so doing 

 committed no tort. Cache la Poudre Irrigating Ditch Co. v. 

 Hawley, Water Comr. Supreme Court of Colorado. 95 

 Pacific 317. 



ACTION TO ESTABLISH WATERCOURSE. 



Where defendant ditch company's ditch headed on a main 

 stream several miles below the junction of a tributary on 



