946 



THE IKRIGAT10N AGE. 



p moves up valve i'i opens and admits water; when f is forced 

 down i'i closes and v opens and the pressure which 

 p exerts against the water surface is transmitted un- 

 diminished in all directions thus to the lower sur- 

 face of the piston ,P, which rises and lifts the superim- 

 posed load. If the area of piston p is one square inch 

 and the pressure forcing it down is 10 Ibs., then the pressure 

 exerted on the fluid is 10 Ibs. per square; if the area of 

 the piston P is 400 square inches then the total upward 

 pressure on it will be 400 X 10 Ibs. = 4,000; thus a force 

 of 10 Ibs. on piston p would hold a load of 4,000 Ibs. on 

 piston P in equilibrio, and a small excess of the force 

 on p will make the piston P rise with its load. It is seen, 

 however, that while a small force of 10 Ibs. is lifting a 

 load of 4,000 Ibs. that the piston /> has to work through 

 400 inches while piston P rises only 1 inch; so what is 

 gained in power is lost in time. 



c. The pressure depends on depth and area of surface. 

 In a vessel filled with a fluid at rest the pressure due" 

 to the weight of the fluid must be considered. Thus the 

 pressure on the bottom of a vessel is equal to the weight 

 of the liquid resting thereon. In Fig. 66 are shown 3 ves- 

 sels, A, B and C, filled to the 

 same height with a liquid; then 

 the pressure per square inch on 

 the bottom of A, B and C is 

 equal per square inch. But if 

 the area of bottom in vessel A 

 is 2 square inches, in B 8 square 

 inches and in C 1 square inch, 

 then the pressure on the bottom 

 of A is twice and in B is 8 

 times as great as in C, regard- 

 less of the amount of water in 

 i the various vessels. Also if the 



surface of the walls of a vessel is considered, the pressure 

 as against the areas a, b and c is equal to the weight of 

 a column of water having a base equal to the areas a, b 

 and c respectively, and having a height reaching from the 

 center of gravity of the section to the surface of the 

 water. 



Fig. 66 



Wilhelm K. Winterhalter, already widely known in Cali- 

 fornia and western states, has recently opened a consulting 

 agricultural office at Los Angeles. He will supply expert 

 advice on irrigation propositions to prospective investors or 

 bonding companies. 



The Canadian Pacific announces that J. S. Dennis, assist- 

 ant to William Whyte, vice-president, has been made manager 

 of the company's irrigation and land interests in the provinces 

 of Alberta and British Columbia. His headquarters will 

 remain at Calgary. 



An English engineer has been employed by the Turk- 

 ish government to investigate the possibility of restoring 

 the ancient canals of Mesopotamia in the hope that that 

 now barren land may regain its ancient luxuriance. 



The Agricultural Improvement Association of New 

 York State, with principal offices in New York City, has 

 been incorporated to deal in property, irrigated lands and 

 develop water power. Directors are: President, W. C. Brown, 

 of the New York Central Railroad Company; William 

 McCarroll, E. Pfarrius and Welden Ring, New York; 

 Congressman John W. D wight, Dryden; George A. Fris- 

 bie, Utica; Ralph Peters, Long Island City; William C. 

 Barry and E. G. Miner, Rochester. 



A. E. Robinson, formerly First Assistant Engineer 

 for the Federal Mining and Smelting Company at Wal- 

 lace, is reported to be slated for the office of State Engi- 

 neer of Idaho. Governor-elect Hawley is said to have 

 given assurances of his appointment. 



At a recent meeting of the People's Irrigation Dis- 

 trict, embracing land in the vicinity of Payette, the final 

 records were made on the cost of construction of the 

 irrigation svstem, which is now complete. The cost was 

 $4,196.05, all of which has been paid. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



In an action by a landlord to recover one-half of a 

 rice crop raised by defendant as plaintiff's tenant, defendant, 

 by a plea in reconvention, claimed damages for plaintiff's 

 failure to construct an irrigation lateral to his rice land, 

 and plaintiff in a supplemental petition alleged that, after 

 the water was turned in, defendant could easily have made 

 it sufficient, and was not entitled to damages, and defendant 

 answered by general denial, and alleging that after the water 1 

 was turned in plaintiff prevented him from fixing it, and 

 caused men to dig barrow pits or ditches on the inside 

 of such lateral, which became so boggy that defendant could 

 not use his teams inside the levee, and that he could not 

 take dirt from the outside to build it higher, as the land 

 belonged to third parties, defendant, to excuse his alleged 

 negligence could show that there were barrow pits outside 

 the levee rendering the taking of earth impossible, for the 

 general denial placed the burden of proving his negligence 

 on plaintiff, and anything which would rebut that was ad- 

 missible. Poultra v. Marti)i. Court of Civil Appeals of 

 Texas. 135 Southwestern 725. 

 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



A decree adjudicating water rights gave each of certain 

 ditches a priority number, and an amount of water equal 

 to the carrying capacity of the ditch, followed by a pro- 

 viso limiting the amount of water permitted to flow into a 

 ditch to a designated number of cubic feet per second "until 

 such time as said parties shall have increased their cultivated 

 meadow and pasture thereunder land to more than (naming 

 the exact acreage then in cultivation) and then the increase 

 in the amount of water so permitted to flow into said ditch 

 shall only be in the ration and proportion of one cubic foot 

 per second for each 40 acres of such additional lands. And 

 provided, further, that said increase of such additional lands 

 and the user thereon of such proportionate additional amount 

 of water appropriated therefor shall be made with due dili- 

 gence." Held, that the decree was absolute as to that por- 

 tion decreeing that there should be permitted to flow into 

 the .respective ditches the amount of water that had at that 

 time been applied to a beneficial use and interlocutory as to 

 the remainder of the carrying capacity of such ditches, and 

 that whatever rights were covered by the interlocutory 

 portions were inchoate. Crawford Clipper Ditch Co. v. Needle 

 Rock Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 114 Pacific 

 655. 

 AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATION. 



An allowance of one inch of water to an acre for 

 irrigation in adjusting priorities will not be increased to 

 allow for seepage and evaporation ; that amount being in- 

 tended to include such loss. Nevada Ditch Co. v. Canyon & 

 Sand Hollow Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Oregon. 114 Pa- 

 cific 86. 

 APPROPRIATION. 



In this territory a corporation has the right to make 

 an appropriation of water from a natural stream and dis- 

 tribute it to those who may require it for purposes of irri- 

 gation, whether it has land connected with such irrigation 

 system or not. Hagerman Irrigation Co. v. McMurry. Su- 

 preme Court of New Mexico. 113 Pacific 823. 

 No MONOPOLY FOR PROMISCUOUS SALE. 



The right to the beneficial use of water to be acquired 

 under the permit applied for under Act Feb. 24, 1909, known 

 as the "Water Code" (Laws 1909, p. 332) 45 et seq., is not 

 an opportunity to acquire a monopoly of the water of a 

 stream for promiscuous sale, but must contemplate a use on 

 specific land which, when completed under section 53, shall 

 become appurtenant to the land to which it is applied. Cook- 

 inham v. Lewis. Supreme Court of Oregon. 114 Pacific 88. 

 IRRIGATION BONDS. 



Bonds issued by an irrigation district after a decree 



confirming its proceedings in the issuance of bonds may be 



held valid in the hands of bona fide holders and enforceable 



by levy of assessments to pay interest after a later judgment 



declaring the issuance of bonds to have been void. Haese 



