752 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



EXPERT TESTIMONY 



Expert knowledge is not necessary to testify whether a 

 crop of rice was sufficiently watered to make it properly grow. 

 Kinchcloe Irrigating Co. v. Hahn Bros. & Co. Court of 

 Civil Appeals of Texas. 132 Southwestern 78. 



RECLAMATION DISTRICTS 



A petition for organization of a reclamation district suffi- 

 ciently described the land where it referred to a well-known 

 ranch and to a map, though the latter is not shown to have 

 been recorded. Metcalfe, County Treasurer, v. Merritt. Court 

 of Appeal, Second District, California. Ill Pacific 505. 



CHANGE IN POINT OF DIVERSION 



The right to change the point of diversion of an irrigation 

 ditch, connected with a natural stream, though a property 

 right, is not absolute, and will not be permitted if it affects 

 vested rights of others. New Cache La Poudre Irrigating Co. 

 v. Water Supply & Storage Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 

 Ill Pacific 610." 



CHANGE IN POINT OF DIVERSION 



A decree permitting a change in the point of diversion of 

 an irrigation ditch does not, and cannot, entitle the recipient 

 to divert more water than he theretofore took, nor to use it 

 for longer than he was previously entitled to. New Cache La 

 Poudre Irrigating Co. v. Water Supply & Storage Co. Su- 

 preme Court of Colorado. Ill Pacific 610. 



RECLAMATION BONDS 



One who successfully bids for reclamation district bonds 

 on condition that they he legal and valid can question any 

 proceeding which was so defective as to invalidate the bonds, 

 but cannot attack the validity of the organization of the dis- 

 trict if the district had a dc facto existence when it issued the 

 bonds. Metcalfe, County Treasurer, v. Merritt. Court of 

 Appeal, Second District, California. Ill Pacific 505. 



COMPETENCY OF EXPERT 



It may be presumed that an employe of defendant irri- 

 gation company in charge of the distribution of water for irri- 

 gation had sufficient knowledge to know whether rice land was 

 obtaining sufficient water, and defendant should not attack his 

 competency to so testify. Kincheloe Irrigating Co. v. Hahn 

 Bros. & Co. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 132 South- 

 western 78. 



DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF WATER 



The amount of water in inches to which a riparian owner 

 may be entitled for irrigation as against other riparian owners 

 is impossible of estimation, varying continually, not only by 

 the varying volume of water flowing down the stream at dif- 

 ferent times of the year, or at different years, but also from 

 the amount of land that may have been settled upon, and the 

 extent of the use of the water for ordinary or natural pur- 

 poses. Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch Co. Supreme 

 Court of South Dakota. 128 Northwestern 596. 



WATER RIGHTS IN INTERSTATE STREAM 



The Federal Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 

 and the California state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to 

 determine the relative rights of parties claiming, the one in 

 Nevada and the other in California, to be entitled to appro- 

 priate, as against each other, the waters of an interstate stream, 

 and whichever court first acquires jurisdiction is entitled to 

 proceed to final determination without interference from the 

 other. Richey Land 6- Cattle Co. Petitioner, v. Miller & Lux. 

 Supreme Court of the United States. 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 11. 



USE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS 



A riparian proprietor's right to use the water of a stream 

 is an incident of ownership of the riparian lands, which can 

 be lost only by adverse prescriptive right, grant, or actual 

 abandonment, and does not depend on use, so that, where a 

 riparian proprietor's settlement antedated plaintiff's appropria- 

 tion, it was not material to the riparian proprietor's priority 

 that he did not use the water for irrigation on his land prior 

 to such appropriation. Redivatei- Land & Canal Co. v. Reed. 

 Supreme Court of South Dakota. 128 Northwestern 702. 



FAILURE TO FURNISH WATER 



In an action for damages for the breach of a contract to 

 supply water for irrigating the plaintiff's lands, where it ap- 

 pears that the land is unbroken and practically unproductive 

 prairie, if the plaintiff prevails he can only recover the differ- 

 ence between the rental value of said land with water accord- 

 ing to the terms of the contract and the rental value without 

 such water. The supposed value of what the land might have 

 produced had the water been furnished is too remote, specu- 

 lative, and conjectural. Wade v. Belmont Irrigating Canal & 

 Water Power Co. Supreme Court of Nebraska. 128 North- 

 western 514. 



NATURE OF USE 



As between riparian proprietors using the water of a 

 stream for domestic purposes and for watering stock, the 

 owner whose land lies nearest the source of the stream may 

 use all of the water, if he needs it, to the exclusion of the 

 others; but, with reference to an artificial use including min- 

 ing, manufacturing, and irrigation, there is no preference as 

 between riparian owners owing to the location of their land, 

 the rights of all being exactly the same, and limited to a rea- 

 sonable use in view of the rights of all the other riparian 

 owners on the stream. Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone Ditch 

 Co. Supreme Court of South Dakota. 128 Northwestern 596. 



POINT OF DIVERSION 



Civ. Code, Sec. 278, declares that the owner of land may 

 use water running in a definite stream formed by nature over 

 or under the surface as long as it remains there, but he may 

 not prevent the natural flow of the stream, nor of the natural 

 spring from which it commences, in its definite course, nor 

 pursue nor pollute the same. Held, that a riparian proprietor, 

 under such section, which was -declaratory only of the common 

 law, desiring to use the waters for irrigation, was not bound 

 to divert the water at a point within the boundaries of his own 

 land, but was entitled as against lower riparian proprietors 

 to divert the water on the land of upper proprietors with their 

 consent, so long as the quantity of water taken does not ex- 

 ceed the amount defendants are entitled to use. Redwater 

 L'ind & Canal Co. v. Reed. Supreme Court of South Dakota. 

 128 Northwestern 702. 



"MUTUAL IRRIGATION COMPANY"- 



An irrigation company organized under the laws of this 

 state, which has no source of income, derives no revenue 

 from the operation of its ditch or canal, and conducts its busi- 

 ness solely for the purpose of irrigating the lands of its mem- 

 bers and stockholders, is, de facto, a "mutual irrigation com- 

 pany" as defined by Section 6845, Cobbey's Ann. St. 1909. Such 

 a company may adopt by-laws regulating the use of the water 

 it has appropriated, by its stockholders in turn, and require 

 each of them to contribute his proportionate share to a main- 

 tenance fund to enable it to carry on the enterprise, and may 

 make the payment of the same a condition of the right of the 

 stockholder to receive water to irrigate his land ; and, where 

 such by-laws are agreed to and signed by all of the stockhold- 

 ers of the corporation, the courts will recognize and enforce 

 the same as a valid contract binding alike upon all of them. 

 Omaha Law Library Ass'n v. Connell, 55 Neb. 396. 75 N. W. 

 837. Swanger v. Porter, Supreme Court of Nebraska. 128 

 Northwestern 516. 



ADVERSE USER. 



A river divided into two channels, K. and S., between 

 which a natural channel, opening into K., existed. An 

 artificial channel was dug connecting S. with the natural 

 channel, and by means thereof, the waters of S. were di- 

 verted to K. for use below the mouth of the natural chan- 

 nel. The person who so used the waters owned the ditches 

 connecting with K.. together with the water rights belong- 

 ing thereto. Held, that the right to the use of the water 

 flowing through the natural channel into K. was an appur- 

 tenance to the ditches, and the water right followed the 

 ownership of the ditches. Evans Ditch Co. v. Lakeside 

 Ditch Co. Court of Appeal, Third District, California. 108 

 Pacific 1027. 



j? Send $1.00 for The Irrigation Age, one year, and the 

 Primer of Irrigation, paper bound, a 260-page finely * 

 J. illustrated work for new beginners in irrigation. 



