1120 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



INTERFERING WITH DIVERSION OF WATER. 



Where a bill to enjoin defendants from interfering with 

 complainant's diversion of water from a natural stream for 

 irrigation purposes, and to determine the several rights of 

 the parties to the waters of the stream, alleges facts apparently 

 sufficient to warrant the relief demanded, the fact that the 

 bill also prays for a permanent injunction restraining defend- 

 ants from interfering with complainant's ditch and works and 

 physically injuring the same merely makes such relief inci- 

 dental, and all the parties interested in the waters of the 

 stream must be made parties. Washing torn State Sugar Co. v. 

 Sheppard, U. S. Circuit Court, District of Idaho, 186 Federal 

 233 



OBLIGATION TO FURNISH WATER. 



A lease of land under an irrigation ditch by an irrigation 

 company provided that the lessees agreed to use the lateral 

 ditches on the land, and to divert the necessary water for its 

 irrigation so as not to interfere with the necessary flow of 

 water through such lateral ditches for the irrigation of other 

 lands controlled by the lessor, provided that the lessees should 

 at all times, when necessary, divert from the lateral ditches 

 two cubic feet of water per second of time. Held, that such 

 lease obligated the lessor to furnish at least two cubic feet of 

 water per second for irrigation of the leased land without 

 reference to the requirements of other lands supplied by such 

 lateral ditches. Wyoming Cent. Irr. Co. v. Burroughs. Su- 

 preme Court of Wyoming. 115 Pacific 434. 



did not contract with the stockholders below the spillway as 

 to taking over the ditch. There was no appreciable change in 

 the use of the canal below the spillway, after its construc- 

 tion, from the use before that time. The head gate in the 

 dam below the spillway was defective, and defendant failed 

 to make any provision for caring for surplus water. Held 

 to show that the stockholders were agents of defendant, and 

 it was liable for the injuries sustained. Billings Realty Co. v. 

 Big Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Montana. 115 Pacific 828. 



BRIDGING CANALS. 



Civ. Code, 551, which provides that no canal can be laid 

 out, constructed, or maintained so as to obstruct any public 

 highway, and that the one so maintaining or using such a 

 canal must repair the bridges, etc., was enacted in its present 

 form in 1905. Before that it provided that every water or 

 canal corporation must construct and keep in good repair at 

 all times for public use across their canal, flume, etc., all the 

 bridges that the county may require. This section was based 

 on prior statutory provisions, passed nearly half a century 

 before. Pol. Code, 2694, provides that when highways are 

 laid across canals on public lands chose using the canals must 

 prepare them so that the highway may cross without danger, 

 and section 2737, providing penalties for obstructing or in- 

 juring highways, contains provisions for bridging ditches 

 which cross pre-existing highways. Held that, in view of 

 these provisions the original act did not impose upon the own- 

 ers of canals the duty of bridging them whenever the public 

 should lay out a road over them, and that the present section 

 does not impose that duty, for the word "maintain," which is 

 the basis of the claim, should be construed merely as a pro- 

 hibition against maintaining a canal in such a way that it 

 would injure an existing highway. City of Madera v. Madera 

 Canal & Irrigation Co. Supreme Court of California. 115 

 Pacific 936. 



New Headgate on the Vermejo River, New Mexico. Capacity 1,400 Cubic Feet Per Second. 



INJURIES FROM IRRIGATION WORKS. 



A corporation, to supply water to its stockholders for irri- 

 gation, built a canal, and defendant, on acquiring the canal, 

 constructed a dam and spillway at a point about three-fourths 

 of a mile short of its previous terminus, beyond which indi- 

 vidual stockholders alone used the water for irrigation pur- 

 poses. It had been the custom for stockholders to turn the 

 water from the canal into their laterals, and for those who 

 used water beyond the spillway to turn the water down the 

 old canal at that point, and the corporation merely exercised 

 supervision to the end that no more water should be taken by 

 any .individual user than the amount to which he was entitled. 

 Water causing injury to an owner of land was turned down 

 the spillway by a stockholder entitled to use it. Defendant 



New Headgate on the Vermejo River. 

 The half-tone illustration shown on this page gives 

 a good view of a substantially built headgate on the 

 Vermejo river in New Mexico. The works are all con- 

 structed of steel and concrete and are giving full satis- 

 faction under the heavy flow of 1,400 cubic feet per sec- 

 ond. It is a magnificent example of what is being done 

 in the west in the way of permanent irrigation plants. 



YOU WILL NEED THIS BOOK 



The Primer of Hydraulics will be ready January 1, 

 1912. Send $2.50 for a copy of this newest and best book 

 on Hydraulics for plain people. 



