662 



THE IRKIGATION AGE. 



UNCAPPED WELLS. (Continued from page 659.) 



Where defendants had been in the use of wells alleged 

 to constitute a diversion of the waters of a stream, to a part 

 of which complainant was entitled, for more than five years, 

 complainant's suit to restrain the maintenance of the wells was 

 barred by laches. Hudson \. Dailey. Supreme Court of Cali- 

 fornia. 105 Pacific 748. 

 TRANSFER OF RIGHTS. 



A party claiming the right as a prior appropriator of the 

 water of a stream by virtue of a right initiated by notice 

 given by a third person as required by Civ. Code, 1415, is 

 entitled to show the agreements whereby the third person's 

 rights are vested in him. IVishon v. Globe Light & Power Co. 

 Supreme Court of California. 110 Pacific 290. 

 129 Southwestern 840. 

 CHANGE OF METHOD. 



Parties owning the right to the use of water may change 

 the method of conveying it to the point of use, if such change 

 does not materially prejudice others' rights ; and in doing 

 so any dry ravine, gulch, or hollow, as well as the natural 

 channel of a stream, may be used by the appropriator of water 

 in its transmission to the place of use. Hough v. Porter. 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. 98 Pacific 1083. 

 UNDERGROUND WATER BEARING STRATUM. 



Where the accustomed flow of a stream is more than 

 necessary to supply an underground water-bearing stratum 

 supplying complainant's land with water for irrigation, the 

 burden is on an appropriator, claiming the right to appropriate 

 the surplus flood waters of the stream for use beyond the 

 watershed, to show that such flood waters were in fact wasted 

 or lost waters. Miller v. Bay City Waters Co. Supreme Court 

 of California. 107 Pacific 115. 

 CHANGE OF PLACE OF USE. 



Where the owner of an irrigation water right in the use 

 of water from a common dam and ditch was entitled to 

 water to irrigate 60 acres of a certain tract, he was entitled 

 to use such right to irrigate a similar quantity of other land 

 pursuant to such right, involving a mere change of the place 

 of use, and no injury to any other person interested in the 

 water. Walnut Irr. Dist. v. Burke. Supreme Court of Cali- 

 fornia. 110 Pacific 518. 



RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



Where water flows from a river into a slough, or from 

 the slough into the river, as the water in one may be higher 

 than in the other at a particular season, a person owning land 

 abutting on the slough has the equal right to take a reason- 

 able share of water therefrom for irrigation with another 

 person who owns land abutting on the river. Turner v. James 

 Canal Co. Supreme Court of California. 99 Pacific 520. 



MAINTENANCE OF DITCH. 



Where several persons are tenants in common in an 

 irrigation ditch and dam at its source, each is responsible in 

 proportion to his interest for the maintenance and repair of 

 the dam and ditch, and in case of default of one or more, 

 the others may make the repairs for which the defaulting 

 party is liable for his pro rata, but such a failure by one does 

 not justify another in making up the loss occasioned by 

 drawing off the water from the former. Carnes v. Dalton. 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. 110 Pacific 170. 



CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT. 



If decrees adjudicating water rights, rendered in 1889 

 were absolute and unconditional, they cannot be reopened 

 by a suit brought in 1894 to restrain some of the parties thereto 

 from using more than a certain amount of water, or for other 

 material change, in absence of fraud in procuring them, 

 though, if such decrees were conditional, such a suit was the 

 proper procedure for protecting the rights of the parties, and 

 ascertaining completed appropriations. Drach v. Isold. Su- 

 preme Court of Colorado. 109 Pacific 748. 



PRIORITIES. 



A complaint to determine the priority of irrigation water 

 rights is insufficient where it does not definitely describe 

 plaintiffs' lands, and does not show that any particular land 

 needed irrigation, does not specify the amount of water di- 

 verted nor the amount needed to the acre, or for any specific 

 land, and does not show how much water plaintiffs' grantors 

 acquired a right to use ; an allegation that plaintiffs were, en- 

 titled to all the water in a creek during the dry season being 

 too indefinite. Porter v. Pettengill. Supreme Court of Ore- 

 gon. 110 Pacific 393. 



(Continued on page 675.) 



MONEY CROPS 



IJV 



SACRAMENTO VALLEY 



ALFALFA 6 cuttings, 9 to 12 tons, 



worth $8 a ton in stack up to $10 

 to $18 a ton baled. 

 INDIAN CORN 75 to 100 bushels 



per acre. 

 EGYPTIAN CORN 75 or more 



bushels per acre. 

 SUGAR BEETS 15 to 35 tons per 



acre. 

 ONIONS 300 bushels and up per 



acre. 

 SWEET POTATOES 300 bushels 



and up per acre. 

 TOMATOES-300 bushels and up 



per acre. 



MELONS $150 to $300 per acre. 

 ORANGES $300 to $800 per acre. 

 LEMONS $400 to $1000 per acre. 

 GRAPE FRUIT-$400 to $1000 per 



acre. 



OLIVES $300 to $1000 per acre. 

 PRUNES $250 to $500 per acre. 

 PEACHES $200 to $600 per acre. 

 PEARS $300 to $800 per acre. 

 POULTRY 500 hens return $100 a 



month. 

 TURKEYS, DUCKS, GEESE- All 



profitable. 

 HOGS and ALFALFA $100 to $150 



per acre. 

 DAIRYING Twice as profitable as 



in Wisconsin, Illinois or Iowa. 

 FANCY STOCK-Just the region 



for best results. 



CLIMATE The eel ebr a ted Cali- 

 fornia variety. 



C. C. MILLER'S WHITE LEGHORNS AT WILLOWS 

 This flock of 1000 hens earned $1427 gross and $940 net in five months 



Send for FREE I M Olt M \ I I ON or send lOc. for a beautiful book in rotor*. "California Wow or Xever." 



H.L. no M.I STi-:it A CO., 80S LaNalle Street. Chicago, III..:*!.-. Fouith Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 



California Free Exhibit Hall, 75 WaHhington Street, Chicago. 



When writing to advertisers please mention The Irrigation Age. 



