THE IRKIGATION AGE. 



705 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



DEFINITENESS OF DITCH LICENSE 



Though a license to construct a ditch on the licensor's 

 land is indefinite as to location and extent, it becomes definite 

 in such respects when located and constructed. Shaw v. 

 Profitt. Supreme Court of Oregon. 110 Pacific 1092. 



NON-COMPLIANCE WlTH STATUTES 



Actual appropriation of water without compliance with 

 the Code gives to the appropriator a right as against any one 

 who did not have at the time of his diversion a superior right, 

 and, though it cannot devest prior rights, it is good as against 

 a subsequent appropriator. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water 

 & Light Co. Supreme Court of California. 110 Pacific 927. 

 COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES 



Compliance with the Code by an appropriator of water 

 cuts off rights accruing between the date of the posting of 

 notice of appropriation and the actual diversion for beneficial 

 purposes; but, where no such rights have intervened, an 

 actual appropriation may be made without following the Code. 

 Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. Supreme 

 Court of California. 110 Pacific 927. 

 UNNECESSARY PARTIES TO SUIT. 



A decree enjoining interference with plaintiff reser- 

 voir company's water in a canal of an irrigation company, 

 with the irrigation company's head gates, and with its 

 superintendent, was not objectionable, because the irriga- 

 tion company was not a party to the suit. Hackett v. 

 Larimer & Weld Reservoir Co. Supreme Court of Colo- 

 rado. 109 Pacific 965. 

 WATER RIGHTS ON PUBLIC LANDS. 



When a water right and a ditch right connected there- 

 with are acquired while the lands embracing the point of 

 diversion and a portion of the ditch are public lands, those 

 rights are not affected by the subsequent location, entry, 

 and patenting of such lands. Snyder v. Colorado Gold 

 Dredging Co. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 381 Federal 

 2. 

 OBLIGATION TO COMPLETE IRRIGATION CANAL. 



An obligation to complete an irrigation canal and to 

 furnish water for land in the future has the same effect on 

 the question of a deed being a mortgage to secure per- 

 formance as if it were an obligation to pay a debt in a 

 fixed sum due at a specified future date. Boyer v. Paine. 

 Supreme Court of Washington. 110 Pacific 682. 

 APPROPRIATION. 



Where the court found that appellee made two dis- 

 tinct appropriations of water for a reservoir, the first on 

 March 5, 1901, of 200 cubic feet per second, and the second 

 on October 22d, of the same volume, a decree awarding 

 appellee a priority of 400 cubic feet per second, as to 

 March 5, 1901, was erroneous. Windsor Reservoir & Canal 

 Co. v. Lake Stiffly Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 

 flS Pacific T29. 

 PHOTOGRAPHS IN EVIDENCE. 



In an action for wrongful diversion of a water course 

 to the injury of plaintiff's land, certain photographs of the 

 premises showing the condition of the land after the di- 

 version of the water after proof of correctness and the 

 manner and time of taking were properly admitted as ex- 

 planatory of the effect of the diversion of the water. 

 Rickett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Supreme Court of 

 North Carolina. 69 Southeastern 8. 

 JUDGMENT AFFECTING PERSONS Nor PARTIES TO SUIT. 



A decree fixing a consumer's right to use water from 

 an irrigation company's canal in a suit to which a reser- 

 voir company was not a party is no defense to a suit by 

 the reservoir company against him and others, to enjoin 

 interference with the company's water in the irrigation 

 company's canal; the reservoir company not being required 

 to intervene in the first suit. Hackett v. Larimer & Weld 

 Rcsen'oir Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 109 Pacific 965. 

 POLLUTION OF STREAM. 



Any use of a stream that materially fouls the water, 

 or a deposit therein of any filth that so far affects water 

 as to impair its value for ordinary purposes, or anything 

 which renders the water offensive to taste or smell, or 



which is calculated to excite disgust in those using it for 

 ordinary purposes, is a nuisance, which equity will enjoin 

 at the suit of a riparian owner injured thereby. Shoffner 

 v. Sutherland. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 68 

 Southeastern 996. 

 TAKING LAND FOR DITCHES. 



The right under Const, art. 1, Sec. 16, and Laws 1899, 

 c. 131, to take land for irrigation ditches is not defeated 

 because water might be obtained by pumping; and it is 

 immaterial why condemner acquired the lands to be irri- 

 gated, or whether he intends 19 farm them or sell them in 

 tracts, if the lands are to be irrigated to enhance their agri- 

 cultural value. State ex rel Galbraith v. Superior Court of 

 Spokane County. Supreme Court of Washington. 110 Pa- 

 cific 429. 

 POINT AND MODE OF DIVERSION. 



So long as a riparian owner takes no more than his 

 share of water from the stream and uses it on his land for 

 irrigation without waste, it is immaterial to lower riparian 

 owners at what point the water is diverted or by what 

 means; whether at the point far above where the elevation 

 of the stream will be sufficient to carry the water to the 

 land by gravitation, or by a dam and headgate, or by pumps 

 and buckets. Turner v. James Canal Co. Supreme Court 

 of California. 99 Pacific 520. 

 RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The United States has constitutional authority to or- 

 ganize and maintain an irrigation project within a state 

 where it owns arid lands, whereby it will associate with 

 itself other owners of like lands for the purpose of reclaim- 

 ing and improving them, and for that purpose may exercise 

 the right of eminent domain against other land owners to 

 obtain land necessary to carry the proposed project in 

 effect. Burley v. United States. U. S. Circuit Court of 

 Appeals. 179 Federal 1. 

 ENLARGING DITCH. 



An easement for a ditch used in diverting and carry- 

 ing water covered by an existing appropriation does not 

 carry with it any right to enlarge the ditch, or to change 

 its location or to use it in diverting and carrying a largely 

 increased volume of water under a later appropriation, but 

 is limited to the maintenance and use of the ditch, substan- 

 tially as then constructed, for the purpose of utilizing the 

 existing appropriation. Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging 

 Co. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 181 Federal 62. 

 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



Where an owner of land conveyed his riparian and 

 water rights and privileges belonging to the land, except 

 necessary water for domestic uses, and subsequently con- 

 veyed the land to a third person, the latter was estopped 

 from asserting any right in conflict with the right of th 

 grantees of the riparian and water rights, and the fact that 

 the third person based a claim to water on an appropriation 

 made subsequent to the deed was immaterial. Duckworth 

 v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. Supreme Court of Cali- 

 fornia. 110 Pacific 927. 

 INTERFERENCE. 



Where the grantee of a right to use an irrigation ditch 

 to convey water in excess of a stated amount required for 

 the use of the grantors, caused a depletion of the waters in 

 the ditch without providing for an additional supply to 

 'make up the deficiency, so that the grantors did not re- 

 ceive the amount to which they were entitled, the rights of 

 one of the latter were involved to his injury, and he could 

 sue for relief. Carnes v. Dalton. Supreme Court of Oregon. 

 110 Pacific 170. 

 RIGHTS OF APPROPRIATORS. 



Where, in a suit involving the right to the water of a 

 lake, defendant alleged the diversion of 40 inches through 

 a 15-inch pipe for the irrigation of lands and for an emer- 

 - gency supply, an amended pleading, alleged that it had 

 connected the pipe with a reservoir connected with its 

 system of pipes supplying a city for the purpose of ap- 

 propriating the water for a reserve for emergency uses, did 

 not show that it had a right to anything in excess of the 

 40 inches. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. 

 Supreme Court of California. 110 Pacific 927. 

 APPROPRIATION. 



The fact that, of the several thousand acres of land 

 which may be irrigated at an expense of $10 or $12 per 

 acre under a proposed project, a thousand acres may be 

 irrigated at $5 per acre because of its being at a lower 

 level or nearer the water than the other land, does not 



