824 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



rado Gold Dredging Co. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 



181 Federal 62. 



IRRIGATION LICENSE BY STATE ENGINEER 



Laws 1907, chap. 180, provides for the issuance of licenses 

 by the state engineer to appropriate water for irrigation 

 purposes, and section 15 provides that an ordinary suit may 

 he maintained to adjudicate conflicting water rights in any 

 court of record. Section 19 requires that a petition for a 

 license shall be filed with the state engineer, and section 20 

 declares that the date of receipt be indorsed on the petition, 

 and noted in the record, and, if the application is defective, it 

 shall be returned for correction within 30 days, and that 60 

 days shall be allowed for refiling, in which event the applica- 

 tion shall take priority as of the date of original filing. Sec- 

 tion 21 provides for publication of notice, and that proof of 

 publication shall be filed with the state engineer within 60 

 days of the date of his instruction to make publication, and 

 that, in case of a failure to file such satisfactory proof, the 

 application shall be treated as an original application filed on 

 the date of receipt of proofs of publication. Held, that where 

 the state engineer granted an appropriation license as of the 

 date of filing the petition, notwithstanding a failure to file 

 proof of publication within the time provided, such failure did 



APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE WATER 



The cost of a proposed irrigation project, though not con- 

 clusive on the question of public interest within Laws 1907, 

 chap. 49, sec. 28, authorizing the territorial engineer to reject 

 an application for premit to appropriate waters if in his 

 opinion the approval would be contrary to the public interest, 

 must be taken into consideration in determining whether the 

 application shall be granted or rejected. Young & Norton v. 

 Hinderlider. Supreme Court of New Mexico. 110 Pacific 1045. 

 IRRIGATION CORPORATION 



A promoter of an irrigation corporation, who acquired 

 a right to purchase land through one who had a contract to 

 purchase at $5 an acre, cannot recover damages from the 

 corporation on the ground of fraud, because on forfeiture, of 

 the contract the corporation bought the land directly at about 

 that price, where the promoter sought without actual invest- 

 ment of money to make a large profit by a sale to the corpora- 

 tion at $30 an acre. Mangold v. Adrian Irrigation Co. Su- 

 preme Court of Washington. Ill Pacific 173. 

 IRRIGATION PROJECTS 



That a later project for irrigating land is better within 

 the available water supply than a prior project is no reason 

 why the territorial engineer should not, under Laws 1907, 



Avery Steam Shovel owned by Handly & Spangler, St. Charles Mo., at work on their farm, building a levee. This outfit is manu- 

 factured by the Avery Company, Peoria, Hi., an.l is used r.lso for irrigation work, drainage, street excavating, stripping coal, etc. In 

 the April issue of this journal will be shown a fine ditch opened out by this outfit. 



not deprive the engineer of jurisdiction ; and hence his deci- 

 sion as to such priority could not be reviewed on certiorari. 

 Geiger v. Lea, State Engineer. Supreme Court of South 

 Dakota. 128 Northwestern 139. 

 REVOCATION OF DITCH LICENSE 



Defendant, acting as owner of land, having granted plain- 

 tiff a license to construct a ditch through it, and having there- 

 after acquired the title, while recognizing the right of plain- 

 tiff, who, supposing the land belonged to defendant, had at 

 great expense partly constructed the ditch, is estopped to re- 

 voke the license, the same as though he had been the owner 

 when he granted it. Shaw v. Profitt. Supreme Court of Ore- 

 gon. 110 Pacific 1092. 



ion 

 mtfit. 



chap. 49, regulating the use and disposition of water for irri- 

 gation, approve the earlier project for the amount of land 

 there is water for. Young & Norton v. Hinderlider. Supreme 

 Court of New Mexico. 110 Pacific 1045. 

 CONVEYANCES 



A conveyance by an owner of land of his riparian and 

 water rights and privileges belonging to the land, except 

 necessary water for domestic purposes, transfers to the grantee 

 not only riparian rights, but all water rights which belong 

 to the land, except the rigths reserved, and transfers the right 

 of the grantor to apply the waters to his land, except for the 

 reserved uses. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. 

 Supreme Court of California. 110 Pacific 927. 



