THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



707 



RECEIVER FOR IRRIGATION CORPORATION 



The court will not appoint a receiver of a public service 

 irrigation corporation to supply the water needed to irrigate 

 the lands of those who have purchased water rights where 

 there has been no misappropriation of corporate funds, and. 

 where the owners of the lands have refused to pay further 

 water rents on the ground that the damages, the failure of 

 the corporation to comply with the contracts to furnish water 

 exceeded the amount claimed for water rents, and where the 

 only source of revenue of the corporation is the collection 

 of water rents from the purchasers of water rights, and where 

 it is not shown that a receiver has facilities for collecting 

 those rents superior to those possessed by the corporation, or 

 that sufficient funds for the operation of the irrigation plant 

 can be collected by any one. Grand/alls Mut. Irr. Co. v. 

 White. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 131 Southwestern 

 233. 

 ACQUISITION BY USER. 



Where when water was distributed to plaintiffs and de- 

 fendants under a decree adjudicating the amounts to which 

 they were entitled from a stream, defendants claimed and re- 

 ceived water only on the basis of 1 cubic foot per second to 

 each 50 acres claimed to be under cultivation, and plaintiffs 

 received the remainder on the same basis, that defendants 

 during certain years received more than they were entitled 

 to under the decree, by falsely claiming to have more land 

 under cultivation than they actually had, would not divest 

 plaintiffs of their right to such additional amount wrong- 

 fully appropriated by defendants, nor would the fact that both 

 parties used all the water they wished from the stream during 

 high water establish a user by defendants of such addi- 

 tional amount so as to divest plaintiffs' rights thereto; plain- 

 tiffs not having intended to admit defendants' absolute right 

 to more water than allowed them by the decree, and the water 

 commissioner not having intended to allow them more than 

 that amount. Drach v. Isola. Supreme Court of Colorado. 

 109 Pacific 748. 

 INJURIES FROM STORAGE OF WATER. 



Mills' Ann. St. 2272, makes the owners of reservoirs 

 liable for all damages from leakage or overflow of the waters 

 or by floods caused by breaking of the embankments. Laws 

 1899, c. 126, s 9, provides that none of its provisions shall 

 relieve the owner of any such reservoir from the payment 

 of damages caused by the breaking of the embankments 

 thereof, but in the event of any such reservoirs overflowing, 

 or the embankments, dams, or outlets breaking or washing 

 out, the owners thereof shall be liable for all damages occa- 

 sioned thereby." Held, that the owners of reservoirs are liable 

 absolutely for all damages from leakage or overflow of the 

 water, or by floods caused by the breaking of an embankment, 

 and they are not relieved from such liability by the fact that 

 they have omitted nothing that human skill and foresight 

 could suggest in the construction and maintenance of the 

 reservoir to render it absolutely safe, and their liability is the 

 same, even if they have used a natural hillside as a part of the 

 restraining wall and it washes out, as the words "embank- 

 ment" and "dam" must be construed as including barriers. 

 Garnet Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Sampson. Supreme Court 

 of Colorado. 110 Pacific 79. 

 RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCH. 



Act Cong. March 3, 1891, c. 561, 18-21, 26 Stat. 1101, 

 1102 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1570, 1571), providing that 

 one may have the right of way through the public lands for 

 the use of a canal or ditch for irrigating purposes, where a 

 map of the same is filed with the Secretary of the Interior 

 for his approval within 12 months after the land has been 

 surveyed by the government, is not inconsistent with Act 

 Feb. 15, 1901, c. 372, 31 Stat. 790 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 

 1584), providing that one may run telegraph lines, water 

 pipes, etc., over the public lands subject to use for parks and 

 reservations on obtaining permission from the Secretary of 

 the Interior so as to require such permission in case of a 

 canal built for irrigation, since the former act applies to 

 canals and ditches the main purpose of which is irrigation, 

 and for whch an easement attaches which becomes permanent 

 on the approval of the Secretary of the Interior after the 

 land has been surveyed: while the latter act refers to the 

 granting of a mere license revocable at any time of the right 

 to construct canals, telephone, and telegraph lines, etc., over 

 the public lands, which may be used for parks and reserva- 

 tions. United States v. Lee. Supreme Court of New Mexico. 

 110 Pacific 607. 



CONDEMNATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



Code Civ. Proc. 1238 prescribes the public uses in be- 

 half of which the right of eminent domain may be exercised, 

 and subdivision 12 authorizes the condemnation of property 

 for canals, reservoirs, dams, ditches, flumes, aqueducts, and 

 pipes, and outlets natural or otherwise for supplying, storing, 

 and discharging water for the operation of machinery to 

 generate and transmit electricity to supply mines, quarries, 

 railroads, tramways, mills and factories with electric power, 

 and to apply electricity to light or heat mines, quarries, mills, 

 factories, incorporated cities and counties, villages or towns, 

 and to furnish electricity for lighting, heating, or power pur- 

 poses to individuals or corporations, together with lands, build- 

 ings, arid all improvements in or upon which to erect, install, 

 place, use or operate machinery to generate and transmit 

 electricity for any of the uses set forth. Subdivision 13 

 authorizes condemnation for electric light, heat, and power 

 lines. Held, that such subdivisions authorize a corporation 

 organized to furnish electric light, heat, and power to con- 

 demn the water in a stream, and the riparian rights of land- 

 owners, for its necessary requirements, and that such com- 

 pany is not limited to the acquisition of water by appropria- 

 tion. Northern Light & Poiver Co. v. Stacker. Court of 

 Appeal, Third District, California. 109 Pacific 896. 

 ISSUANCE OF IRRIGATION BONDS. 



B. & C. Comp. 4714, as amended by Gen. Laws 1909, p. 

 ,164, provides that "for the purpose of procuring necessary 

 property and rights therefor and otherwise carrying out the 

 provisions of this act" the board of directors of any irriga- 

 tion district shall formulate a plan and estimate the cost of 

 carrying it out, and determine the mode of raising the neces- 

 sary funds therefor, and after submitting the plans to the 

 state engineer, and receiving his report, the board shall call 

 a special election to determine whether bonds shall be author- 

 ized, and, if the bonds authorized are insufficient and said board 

 deems it for the best interests of the district that additional 

 bonds be issued, it may again submit the question to the 

 electors, and, if additional bonds be not voted, it shall be the 

 duty of the board to provide for the completion of the plans 

 by levy of assessments. B. & C. Comp. 4714, prior to amend- 

 ment, provided that for the purpose of "carrying out the 

 provisions of this act" the board of directors of any irrigation 

 district, whenever the construction fund has been exhausted, 

 may call a special election to determine whether bonds shall 

 be issued. Held, that where the directors of an irrigation 

 district have used the funds received from a sale of bonds 

 issued under section 4714 prior to amendment, they are au- 

 thorized by the amendment thereto to provide for the issuance 

 of additional bonds. Hall v. Hood River Irr. Dist. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 110 Pacific 405. 

 GOVERNMENT IRRIGATION PROJECT. 



Irrigation Act June 17, 1902, c. 1093, 1, 32 Stat. 388 

 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 596), provides for the forma- 

 tion of a reclamation fund with money received from the sale 

 of public lands in certain states and territories. Section 3 

 authorizes the withdrawal from entry of lands required for 

 irrigation works, and on the completion of surveys of such 

 lands, etc., makes it the duty of the Secretary of the Interior 

 to determine whether the project is practicable, and, if so, 

 the public lands which they propose to irrigate shall only be 

 *subject to entry of specified tracts. Section 4 provides that, 

 if there are necessary funds in the reclamation fund available 

 for the purpose, the project shall be constructed on a contract 

 with the Secretary, who shall give notice of the lands irrigable 

 and of the charges to be made per acre on the entries to be 

 made and on lands in private ownership which may be irri- 

 gated by the waters in the project. Section 5 declares that 

 no right to the use of water for land of private ownership 

 shall be sold exceeding 160 acres to any one landowner. Held. 

 that the act contemplated the irrigation of private lands as 

 well as lands belonging to the government, and that the 

 fact that a scheme contemplated the irrigation of private as 

 well as a large tract of government land did not render the 

 project illegal, ?o as to prevent the condemnation of land 

 necessary to carry it ort. Rurlcv v. United States. U. S. 

 Circuit Court of "Appeals. 170 Federal 1. 



Send $1.00 for the Irrigation Age 1 year, and 

 paper bound copy of the Primer of Irrigation 



