226 



T H E I R R I G A T I X A G E . 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



WATERS APPROPRIABLE. 



Under Act Cong. March, 3, 1877, c. 107, 19 Stat. :;77 

 (U. S. Comp St. 1901. p. 1548), making the waters of lakes, 

 rivers and "other sources of water supply" upon public land 

 subject to appropriation, waters running through a gulch, 

 and derived from melting snows and spring water, are sub- 

 ject to appropriation. Barman v. Blackmon. Supreme Court 

 of Oregon. 118 Pacific 848. 

 LICENSE TO MAINTAIN FLUME. 



Where a person owning land consented to the building 

 of a flume across his land and it was built substantially 

 as agreed, the person building the flume was not a trespasser, 

 but obtained a parole license which was not revocable, so far 

 as executed ; and the owner was without right to destroy 

 the flume and remove it from his land. Jones v. Bondurant. 

 Court of Appeals of Colorado. 120 Pacific 1047. 

 APPROPRIATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



In granting the right to appropriate water of a running 

 stream for power purposes it is within the discretion of 

 the state, through its proper officers, to limit the rights 

 granted so as to prevent the transmission or use of the power 

 beyond the confines of the state. Such limitation does not 

 violate the federal Constitution as interfering- with interstate 

 commerce. Kirk v. State Board of Irrigation. Supreme 

 Court of Nebraska. 134 Northwestern 167. 



DOMESTIC USES OF WATER. 



An upper riparian owner may take for domestic use, in- 

 cluding water for his household and also for such animals 

 as are essential to the proper sustenance of his family, so 

 much of the water: of a natural stream as may be necessary 

 for that purpose, although none may be left for the lower 

 riparian owners ; such use being grounded on actual necessity. 

 Caviness v. La Grande Irr. Co. Supreme Court of Oregon. 

 119 Pacific 731. 



ROTATION OF USE. 



Since an appropriator of water for irrigation is only 

 entitled to use so much as his needs require, and at the 

 time of such requirement, if these are satisfied by use of the 

 whole flow every other day or every other week, the court. 

 in cases involving prior and subsequent water appropriations, 

 may require the appropriators to alternate in the use of the 

 water. McCoy \. Huntley. Supreme Court of Oregon. 11!) 

 Pacific 481. 

 LIABILITY OF CANAL COMPANY. - 



An irrigation canal company, sued for failure to furnish 

 sufficient water for plaintiff's rice crop during a certain sea- 

 son, cannot rely upon a release of liability contained in a 

 contract for service for the succeeding season, if there was 

 no other consideration than the agreement for such subse- 

 quent service ; the company being legally bound to furnish it. 

 Lone Star Canal Co. v. Cannon. Court of Civil Appeals of 

 Texas. 141 'Southwestern 799. 

 RIGHTS MEASURED BY ACTUAL DIVERSION. 



One who makes an appropriation of the waters of a 

 stream acquires no title to the waters, but only a right to 

 their beneficial use to the extent they are employed for that 

 purpose, and his right is not measured by the extent of the 

 appropriation as stated in the notice of appropriation, or 

 by his actual diversion from the stream, but by the extent 

 to which he applies the waters for beneficial purposes, and 

 beyond that the waters are subect to a subsequent appropria- 

 tion by another for similar beneficial purposes. Hufford \. 

 Dye. Supreme Court of California. 12] Pacific 400. 



IRRIGATION GRANTS. 



The Mexican government granted, on February 3, 1824. 

 a large number of grants of water to various grantees. On 

 a subsequent day, it granted grants of water for other land, 

 using the same language. Few grants were subsequently 

 made. Each grant granted to the grantees "1 day of water 

 with its corresponding labor of land." The original grantees 

 of both lands used the water for irrigating their lands con- 

 currently. Held, that the grants did not give any superior 

 right to any of the grantees, but the grants distributed to each 



water rights in common. San Juan Ditch Co. \. Cassia. 

 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 141 Southwestern 8I.">. 

 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



Where the court, in a suit by a lower riparian proprietor 

 against an upper proprietor to determine their rights to the 

 waters of a stream, found that plaintiff, as riparian owner, 

 needed and used the water for domestic purposes, and that 

 in the dry season there was never any surplus in the stream 

 above such needs, a judgment awarding to defendant, as 

 riparian proprietor, all of the water of the stream which he 

 might require for domestic purposes appurtenant to nis lands, 

 including water for household and domestic use, watering 

 stock, and irrigating lawns and gardens adjacent to the 

 dwelling house on the land, was sufficiently favorable to de- 

 fendant. Filipftri v. Hewlett. Supreme Court of California. 

 121 Pacific 376. 

 DIVERSION. 



Civ. Code, 1416, prior to its amendment in iy()7, proviilefl 

 that a claimant of water must begin diversion works within 

 60 days after the posting of notice and diligently pursue 

 the same to completion. Section 1419 declared that failure 

 to comply with such requirement forfeited the claimant's 

 rights as against a subsequent complying claimant, but sec- 

 tion 1422 provided that if the proposed place of diversion, 

 or any part of the diverting canal, was within the United 

 States forest reserve, or other public land, the claimant might 

 commence his works within 60 days after a license from 

 the proper officers to use the reserved lands, provided he be- 

 gan steps to secure such license within 60 days after posting 

 the notice of appropriation. Held, that where plaintiff's 

 notice of appropriation alleged that the places of its in- 

 tended diversion and part of the route of its conduit were 

 within the Sierra forest reserve of the United States, plaintiff 

 having diligently prosecuted its application for use of the 

 public land, the right of diversion was not subject to adverse 

 appropriation until 60 days after the application to use the 

 public land had been acted on. Inyo Consol. Water Co. \. 

 Jess. Supreme Court of California. 119 Pacific 934. 

 REASONABLENESS OF RATES. 



Complainant, an irrigation company, brought suit Jo en- 

 join the enforcement, on the ground that they were con- 

 fiscatory and in violation of complainant's constitutional ' 

 rights, of water rates fixed for its service by the boards of 

 supervisors of the counties through which Its canals ex- 

 tended under Act. Cal. March 12, 1885 (St. 1885, p. 95). 

 which authorized such boards to estimate the value of all 

 property actually used and useful to the appropriation and 

 furnishing of such water and the reasonable annual expense 

 of the service, and to fix such rates that the net annual 

 profits of the company should be not less than 6 nor more 

 than 18 per cent upon the value of the property actually 

 used and useful. Held, that the estimate of the master of 

 the value of the physical property of complainant actually 

 used was made upon a proper basis and was supported by 

 the evidence : that his finding as to the annual expense of the 

 service was also supported by the evidence, and should l>e 

 confirmed, but that complainant was entitled to have added 

 thereto, to be deducted from its San Joaqtiin & Kings 

 Ril'er C. & 1. Co. v. Stanislaus County. U. S. Circuit Court, 

 Northern District of California. 191 Federal 875. 

 ADVERSE USER. 



That defendant during his occupancy of lands and for 

 more than 10 years before the commencement of the suit has 

 under claim of right and in good faith diverted and used 

 for irrigation and domestic purposes all the waters flowing 

 in a stream at the point of intake as used by him during 

 the irrigation period when water has been low in the stream, 

 and that such diversion has at all times been continuous, 

 open, and notorious and adverse to plaintiffs, shows acquisi- 

 tion by defendant of rights of adverse user. Fanvell v. 

 Rrisson. Sitoreme Court of Washington. 119 Pacific 814. 

 PERMIT BY STATE ENGINEER 



Where one enters land, under the desert land laws of 

 Congress, on which is situated a spring and an artesian well, 

 which well was constructed, prior to the entry of such land, 

 for the purpose of increasing the flow of the water, and the 

 water was used for watering stock, and the one who made 

 the well thereafter sold his interest in said well to the entry- 

 man, and she made application of the water to the desert land 

 so entered by her for wrowing crops thereon, held, that her 

 appropriation is as valid as though she had made application 

 to the state engineer for a permit to appropriate the same. 

 Youngs v. Regan. Supreme Court of Idaho, 118 Pacific 490. 



