THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



19 



difference for .001 = .0388, and for .044 it will be 44 X .0388 

 = 1.7072 = 1.71; add this to 115.29 gives 117.00 for factor C 

 in this case. 



Substitute the known quantities in formula : v = C V rs 



V 117.0 X 1.059 X .022 = 2.726 ft. 



The quantity of flow per second = av = 8.66 X 2.726 = 

 23.607 cub. ft. per second. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



DRAINING SURFACE WATER 



A court of equity will not enjoin an upper proprietor 

 from draining surface water from his land through tile 

 drains in the natural course of drainage into the natural 

 channels which nature has provided and onto the land of a 

 lower proprietor. Perry v. Clark, Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska, 132 Northwestern 388. 

 DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER 



While the natural flow of surface water onto one's land 

 may not be complained of, he may complain of its discharge 

 thereon, by interference with natural conditions, in greater 

 quantity or in a different manner than would occur under 

 natural conditions. Heier v. Krull, Supreme Court of Cali- 

 fornia, 117 Pacific 530. 

 RIGHT TO NATURAL FLOW 



An irrigation company cannot obstruct the natural flow 

 and overflow of the outlet of a lake, to the injury of a 

 lower riparian owner, riparian owners having the right to 

 the natural flow of -waters in their natural and accustomed 

 channels without diminution or alteration. Still v. Palouse 

 Irrigation & Power Co., Supreme Court of Washington, 117 

 Pacific 466. 

 PROVING APPROPRIATION 



Proof that haying was done on the respective meadows 

 of parties claiming prior appropriation of water for irriga- 

 tion, without evidence as to whether the hay was raised 

 by artificial irrigation or by the use of a natural overflow, 

 was insufficient to establish an appropriation. Anderson 

 Land & Stock Co. v. McConnell, Circuit Court of Nevada, 

 188 Federal 818. 

 DRAINS 



The mere fact that a drainage district was formed to 

 drain lands in the vicinity of plaintiff's lands, and for that 

 purpose purchased a right of way over his lands, and con- 

 structed a ditch thereon, does not show it has right to di- 

 vert thereto additional waters from the other side of water- 

 shed, making it overflow its banks and injure his lands. 

 Heier v. Krull, Supreme Court of California, 117 Pacific 530. 

 OBSTRUCTION OF DRAIN 



A lower proprietor may not unecessarily obstruct a nat- 

 ural drain upon his own premises without the upper pro- 

 prietor's consent, so as to collect surface water and cast it 

 back upon his neighbor's farm, where it would not appear 

 but for that obstruction, and to the injury of his neighbor's 

 crops and land. Mafes v. Bolton, Supreme Court of Ne- 

 braska, 132 Northwestern 386. 

 IRRIGATION COMPANY'S RIGHT ON DITCH 



Where an irrigation company acquired the right to main- 

 tain a ditch through certain land, its right extended to the 

 . bed of the ditch and to sufficient ground on either side to 

 properly operate the same, but did not confer authority to 

 place a greater servitude or burden on the lands than existed 

 at the time the ditch was constructed, or was reasonably 

 necessary to properly operate it. Arthur Irr. Co. v. Strayer, 

 Supreme Court of Colorado, 115 Pacific 724. 

 CONVEYANCE OF WATER RIGHTS 



Where the intention of the owners of the stock in an 

 irrigation company was to retain certain water rights, and 

 at the same time to convey to other parties their canal 

 and prior appropriation of water, and this was done by 

 means of the transfer of stock and issuance of water right 

 contracts, a court of equity will treat the transaction as it 

 actually was, and not as it appeared to be, in order to protect 

 the rights of the original stockholders. Fenton v. Tri-State 

 Land Co., Supreme Court of Nebraska, 131 Northwestern 

 1038. 

 CHANGE OF EASEMENT 



Where one has a right merely to divert, at a certain 



point on defendant's land, water from a stream, and conduct 

 it by a certain route and means over such land, the fact that 

 they will not be injured by his diverting it at a different 

 point on their land and conducting it over such land by a 

 different route and different means "does not entitle him to 

 make the change, though the elements have rendered it im- 

 possible to divert it at the original point and conduct it by 

 the original way and means. White Bros. & Crum Co., Su- 

 preme Court of Washington, 117 Pacific 496. 

 ABANDONMENT OF WATER RIGHTS 



Since grantees of land with appurtenant water rights 

 could not demand that water be furnished from a particular 

 one of several sources of supply from which they were en- 

 titled to water, so long as they were conveniently furnished 

 the amount to which they were entitled, their failure to de- 

 mand a supply from a source included in their deed would 

 not be a waiver of their right to such supply, when the source 

 from which water was formerly furnished them became in- 

 adequate. Smith v. Cucamonga Water Co., Supreme Court 

 of California, 117 Pacific 764. 

 PRIORITY OF APPLICATION 



Where, in 1891, certain owners of an irrigation canal 

 which was in operation for a distance of about ten miles, 

 conveyed the same, reserving to themselves a perpetual right 

 to water under a common agreement, the court will apply 

 the provisions of chapter 68, Laws 1889, and hold their rights 

 equal as to each other, but superior to those of consumers 

 under a new section of canal beginning at the end of the 

 ten miles already in operation. Fenton v. Tri-State Land Co., 

 Supreme Court of Nebraska, 131 Northwestern 1038. 

 DIVERSION 



Though plaintiff appropriated the water of a stream 

 and diverted it at a point on land owned by the United 

 States, so that under Rev. St. U. S. 2340 (U. S. Compiled 

 St. 1901, p. 1437), defendants took title to the land subject 

 to his vested and accrued water rights and his rights to 

 ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water 

 rights, he merely took an easement, which he could not 

 thereafter change without defendants' consent, as to the point 

 of diversion of the water or the place or means of conveying 

 it over defendants' lands. White Bros. & Crum Co., Su- 

 preme Court of Washington, 117 Pacific 497. 

 APPROPRIATION 



Where complainant's predecessor in title, though con- 

 ceding a prior appropriation by defendants, was entitled to 

 the unused water naturally flowing to him from defendants' 

 land, and was entitled to insist that such unused water be 

 not diverted elsewhere, but should be allowed to return to 

 the stream and serve his appropriation, such unused water 

 was not waste water, but excess above the water defendants 

 were entitled to appropriate, which could not by subsequent 

 enlargement of their ditches, etc., appropriate to complain- 

 ant's prejudice. Anderson Land & Stock Co. v. McConnell, 

 Circuit Court of Nevada, 188 Federal 818. 

 DAM AND RESERVOIR SITE ON SCHOOL LANDS 



Notwithstanding Const, art. 7, 2, 4, 5, providing that 

 all alternate sections of land shall constitute a school fund, 

 that school lands shall be sold under legislative regulations, 

 that the Legislature may not grant any relief to purchasers 

 of school lands, and that the school funds shall be the 

 permanent school fund, the interest of which shall be ap- 

 plied annually to the support of the public free schools, the 

 Legislature, to facilitate the sale of school lands and to en- 

 hance their value, may grant an easement on the lands for 

 dam and reservoir sites for water for irrigation ; such power 

 being inherent in the sovereign government and growing out 

 of necessity Imperial Irr. Co. v. Jayne, Supreme Court of 

 Texas, 138 Southwestern 575. 

 PRIOR APPROPRIATION 



Act March 3, 1887, c. 108, 19 Stat. 377, referring to des- 

 ert lands, provides that all surplus water over and above 

 such actual appropriation and use, together with the water 

 in all lakes, rivers, and other sources of water supply on 

 public lands, shall be free for appropriation, irrigation, min- 

 ing and manufacturing purposes. An irrigation company 

 which had built a dam across the outlet of a lake, thus cut- 

 ting off the stream fed by the lake, claimed that a lower ri- 

 parian owner could not object to its appropriation of the 

 water, because the common-law doctrine of riparian owner- 

 ship was abrogated. Held, that the statute applied only to 

 desert lands and required a bona fide appropriation, and, as 

 the irrigation company had not within five years after its 

 original appropriation completed its work, it had not under 

 Rem. & Bal. Code, 6318, used sufficient diligence to con- 



