106 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



IRRIGATION CANAL NOT A NUISANCE 



Where a canal has been constructed and operated in ac- 

 cordance with law, it is not a nuisance, and can only be- 

 come a nuisance by reason of the manner in which it is 

 maintained, or the method of its operation; and the mere 

 fact that a municipality subsequently extends a street across a 

 canal which has been lawfully constructed and operated does 

 not convert the canal into a nuisance at the place where the 

 street crosses the canal. Boise City v. Boise City Canal Co., 

 Supreme Court of Idaho, 115 Pacific 505. 

 RIGHT TO WASTE WATER 



Where plaintiff's rights were limited and only attached 

 to waste water discharged from a lateral irrigation ditch, 

 she had no control over the ditches or laterals, or the water 

 flowing therein, nor were defendants obligated to continue 

 or maintain conditions so as to supply plaintiff's appropria- 

 tion of waste water at any time or in any quantity, provided 

 they acted in good faith. Green Valley Ditch Co. v. 

 Schneider, Supreme Court of Colorado, 115 Pacific 705. 

 DUTY OF WATER. 



Where the evidence shows the average duty of water 

 under a canal to be five-sevenths of an inch to the acre, a 

 judgment awarding over seven-eighths of an inch is errone- 

 ous, in the absence of any testimony establishing a lower 

 duty of water on that particular tract. Gerber v. Nampa & 

 Meridian Irri. Dist., Supreme Court of Idaho, 116 Pacific 104. 

 IRRIGATION CONTRACT 



Thirteen years' acquiescence in practical construction 

 given a contract to supply water for irrigation estops a con- 

 suming company to claim a larger quantity than has been 

 furnished, especially where large and flourishing communities 

 have been built up at great expense under such construction. 

 North Fork Water Co. v. Medland, U. S. Circuit Court, 

 southern District of California, 187 Federal 163. 

 RIGHTS OF LOT OWNERS. 



Lot owners in a city who have become entitled to the 

 use of water from an irrigation system cannot be compelled 

 to pay for the company's system, nor can they be denied 

 water for the reason that its delivery has been made more 

 expensive or more burdensome to the company. City of 

 Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irri. Dist., Supreme Court of 

 Idaho, .115 Pacific 979. 

 DETERMINATION OF WATER RIGHTS 



Under the rule that equity aims to settle in a single 

 suit the rights of all the persons interested in the subject- 

 matter, it is important that all claimants to the right to 

 divert the waters of a natural stream for beneficial purposes 

 shall be brought into the same court in a single action and 

 therein required to wage their claims, so that such claims 

 necessarily more or less interdependent and conditioned on 

 one another may be settled by a single decree. Washington 

 State Sugar Co. v. Shvppard, U. S. Circuit Court, District 

 of Idaho, 186 Federal 233. 

 ORSTRUCTION OF STREAM 



A riparian owner upon any of the streams of this state, 

 whether navigable or nonnavigable, takes to the thread of 

 the stream (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Idaho 561, 95 Pac. 

 499. 24 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1240, and Lattig v. Scott, 17 Idaho 

 r>06, 107 Pac. 47), and may maintain an action for an obstruc- 

 tion in such stream which diverts the stream or a portion 

 thereof from its natural course, to his damage. Fischer v. 

 Davis, Supreme Court of -Idaho, 116 Pacific 412. 

 WATER RIGHT "REAL PROPERTY"- 



Under the laws of this state, a water right is "real prop- 

 erty." and one who has actually diverted the water of a 

 stream and applied the same to a beneficial use is in the 

 actual possession of such real property, and this possession 

 constitutes actual notice to any subsequent appropriator of 

 the water of the same stream, or to any person who subse- 

 quently applies to the state engineer for a permit to appro- 

 priate and divert the water of the same stream. Nielson v. 

 Parker, Supreme Court of Idaho, 115 Pacific 488. 

 BRIDGES 



In the absence of statute, a canal constructed across a 

 highway must not interfere with the use of the highway, and 

 a highway constructed across a canal may not interfere with 



the use of the canal, and hence the public, in the latter case, 

 must bear the expense of building the bridge; the reason 

 being that the acquisition of a subsequent easement does 

 not carry with it the right to injure or destroy a prior one. 

 City of Madera v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co., Supreme 

 Court of California, 115 Pacific 936. 

 EXTENSION OF DITCH 



Defendant secured a right to construct an irrigation ditch 

 through certain land when it was largely vacant and unoc- 

 cupied. For many years the ditch owners did not attempt 

 to utilize any land on either side of the ditch between the 

 points in controversy, and 15 years after its construction 

 and while such conditions continued, the owners of the ad- 

 joining land platted the same into lots and blocks, and 

 caused it to become a part of a city. Some of the plaintiffs 

 purchased the lots, and placed improvements thereon, with 

 defendant's full knowledge, and others purchased lots with 

 improvements thereon. Held, that defendant was estopped 

 to claim a right to improve the ditch by widening it to the 

 injury of such improvements. Arthur Irr. Co. v. Strayer, 

 Supreme Court of Colorado, 115 Pacific 724. 

 CONVEYANCE OF WATER 



Where, after riparian proprietors had conveyed land 

 to K., with the right to divert the waters of a stream for 

 irrigation and mill privileges, K. joined with his grantors 

 and others who were complainant's predecessors in title in 

 building head gates and dams and reconstructing a ditch 

 subsequently conveyed to complainants, whereby the water 

 was taken upon and made appurtenant, not only to their 

 lands, but also to lands of K. on the west side of the river, 

 which he afterwards conveyed to complainant A., with all 

 the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto 

 belonging or in any wise appertaining, there being at that 

 time sufficient water for users on both sides of river, K. 

 and his grantees were estopped by a subsequent increase of 

 their use to deny the validity of complainants' appropria- 

 tion. Andrews v. Donnelly, Supreme Court of Oregon, 116 

 Pacific 569. 

 ARBITRARY REGULATIONS 



Since the obligations of a private corporation organized 

 to sell arid lands and furnish water for their irrigation are 

 quasi public, such company cannot impose arbitrary restric- 

 tions upon the supply of water under the guise of regulations. 

 Shafford v. White Bluffs Land & Irrigation Co., Supreme 

 Court of Washington, 114 Pacific 883. 

 PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT TO WATER 



In order to support a prescriptive right to take water 

 from a stream at a point on another's land, the claimant 

 must show that they have taken some definite quantity of 

 water therefrom in the past; it being insufficient merely 

 to show that they have taken some water. Logan \. Guicli- 

 ard, Supreme Court of California, 114 Pacific 989. 

 REASONABLE WATER RENT 



Where defendant agreed to pay a "reasonable rent" for 

 water to be furnished him each year for irrigating purposes, 

 there is no such ambiguity as to permit parol testimony that 

 "reasonable rent" meant one-fifth of the crop. Old River 

 Rice Irr. Co. v. Stubbs, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 

 137 Southwestern 154. 

 DEDICATION OF WATER 



Evidence showing the use of drain or waste water, or 

 water primarily belonging to a prior consumer under a canal 

 system, does not establish a dedication of water direct from 

 the canal to the lands of such user. Gerber v. Nampa & 

 Meridian Irr. Dist., Supreme Court of Idaho, 116 Pacific 104. 

 WATER RIGHTS 



A deed conveyed a system of water ditches, and "such 

 right to use the water of K. river in said ditches as" the 

 grantor "now possess," and further provided that there was 

 "saved and reserved" from the operation of the conveyance 

 so much of the water now owned by the grantor as would 

 enable it to fulfill any contracts for the supply of water 

 which it had theretofore made, and the grantee covenanted 

 to keep the ditches in such repair as would enable the grant- 

 or to perform the services required by such contracts. Held, 

 that there was no transfer of any water rights to which 

 others were there entitled under contract with the grantor. 

 Abbott v. Land 6- Water Co., Supreme Court of California, 

 118 Pacific 425. 

 SECRET BALLOT APPLIES TO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 



Section 1, art. 6, Const, which provides for a secret 

 ballot, is applicable to elections held in an irrigation district 

 under the laws of the state. Pioneer Irr. Dist. \. Walker, 

 Supreme Court of Idaho, 119 Pacific 304. 



