302 



THE IKRIGATION AGE. 



struct overhead irrigation systems. The company is in- 

 corporated for $300,000. 



The Secretary of tne Interior has awarded contracts 

 for furnishing electrical apparatus for the Truckee-Carson 

 Irrigation project in Nevada, to the Pittsburgh Trans- 

 former Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., six transformers the 

 contract price of which is $2,799, and to the Westinghouse 

 Electric and Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles, 

 California, switchboards apparatus and the electrolytic 

 lightning arresters, the contract price amounting to 

 $1,739. 



Work on the diversion canal of the Final Mutual Irri- 

 gation Company will be commenced in the near future. 

 This project embraces over 20,000 acres of land lying near 

 the town of Florence, Arizona. 



The Indiana-Arizona Irrigated Land Company of In- 

 dianapolis, Indiana,, has filed articles of incorporation and 

 will place 30,000 acres of fertile land lying north of the 

 city of Prescott, Arizona. The principal offices of the 

 company are located at Indianapolis; capital stock, $3,000,- 

 000. 



PRODUCE NEARLY ALL OUR OWN SALT. 



Michigan is the second salt-producing state in im- 

 portance in the Union, being surpassed only by New York. 

 The output of salt in the state in 1910, according to the 

 United States Geological Survey, was 9,452,022 barrels, or 

 1,323,283 tons, valued at $2,231,262. Our total salt produc- 

 tion in 1910 was 30,305,656 barrels, against only 979,306 

 barrels imported, valued at $370,922. At the same time we 

 exported salt to the value of $320,926. 



The indications are that the salt production for 1911 

 will show an increase over the figures for the preceding 

 year. 



CONSERVATION OF WATER IN ROW IRRIGA- 

 TION. 



The difficulty that every farmer experiences in ordi- 

 nary row irrigation is to so control his supply that the 

 water flows down each row at the same rate and with 

 sufficient velocity so that when the water reaches the 

 lower end of the row the upper end has had time to be 

 sufficiently moistened for the water to reach the roots of 

 the plants. In order to accomplish this, every field should 

 have a ditch running along its highest part, properly laid 

 out. This will be best accomplished by making openings 

 through the side of this ditch through which the water 

 runs into the rows, level; that is to say, fixing them so 

 that when a dam is put in, which brings the water over 

 the bank and forces it through the openings, the. water 

 will run through each opening with the same velocity and 

 therefore have the same head. It will, therefore, he a 

 paying proposition to make these openings permanent. 



A box made of lumber or concrete with openings in 

 the side, each section set level, with a drop at the end of 

 each section so that by placing the dam at the end of the 

 section, the same quantity of water is discharged through 

 each opening and finds its way to each row and is sent 

 down each with the same velocity and the same quan- 

 tity of water is supplied to each row. This quantity can 

 be regulated by increasing or decreasing the head on each 

 opening, and with this arrangement it will be found that 

 labor, time and water will be saved. 



Another thing, after an irrigation by means of the 

 row method, many farmers have found it advisable and 

 profitable to harrow across the rows. This fills the ditches 

 and the ground that is saturated with loose earth which 

 forms a "dust mulch" and thereby prevents excessive 

 evaporation from the rows, while if this is not done the 

 bottom and sides of the ditches take on a crust, the 

 particles become packed together and excessive evapora- 

 tion takes place. For the next irrigation it will be neces- 

 sary to again run the cultivator through the rows in order 

 to form the ditches for another application of water, and 

 by the time this second irrigation occurs the plants will 

 be so far advanced that it will be impossible to harrow 

 a second time, but the first harrowing can be done with 

 very little damage to the crop, in fact it is a benefit to 

 the crop even though some of the plants are destroyed. 



E. B. House. 

 Colorado Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colo. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT. 



In levying an assessment by a drainage district, that por- 

 tion of land taken for the right of way of the ditch should 

 not be assessed to the landowner from whose premises it is 

 taken. Nemaha Valley Drainage Dist. No. 2 v. Stacker. Su- 

 preme Court of Nebraska. 134 Northwestern 183. 

 POWERS OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 



Under the provisions of section 2386 of the Revised 

 Codes, an irrigation district has the power and authority to 

 issue bonds for the purpose of collecting drainage, waste, and 

 seepage water, and storing the same for the irrigation of land 

 within such district. Carlson v. Crescent Woodenware & Box 

 Mfg. Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 120 Pacific 460. 

 APPROPRIATION AS WAIVER OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



A settler upon public lands which border upon a non- 

 navigable stream may claim the use of water either as a 

 riparian owner or as an appropriator, but he cannot claim 

 in both rights, since the exercise of one right is in substance 

 the waiver of the other; the tenancy and characteristics of 

 the two rights being essentially different. Caviness v. La 

 Grande Irr. Co. Supreme Court of Oregon. 119 Pacific 731. 

 APPROPRIATION OF WATER RIGHTS. 



The quantity of water decreed to an appropriator, in an 

 action wherein the priority of appropriation is the issue, 

 should be upon the basis of cubic feet per second of time of 

 the water actually applied to a beneficial use, and should be 

 definite and certain as to the quantity appropriated and neces- 

 sarily used by the appropriator. Lee v. Hanford. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 121 Pacific 558. 

 "CONSTANT FLOW." 



A right to use water for irrigation being limited in time 

 and volume to the extent of the needs of the person in whose 

 favor the right is established for the purpose named, a decree. 

 allowing a "constant flow" of one inch per acre only entitled 

 the owner to a constant flow of that amount when required 

 to irrigate the land to which it was to be applied. Wolff v. 

 Pomfonia. Kershaw Ditch Co. v. Morgan. Supreme Court 

 of Colorado. 120 Pacific 142. 

 IRRIGATION ASSESSMENTS. 



The owner of land within an irrigation district created 

 under Laws 1909, c. 74, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 53, may 

 seek redress in the courts resulting from any unjust assess- 

 ment, and raise issues whether his land is being justly 

 assessed or burdened to maintain an irrigation system 

 through which his land cannot be irrigated nor benefited. 

 Lundberg v. Green River Irrigation Dist. Supreme Court of 

 Utah. 119 Pacific 1039. 

 PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT. 



Where a landowner consented to the construction of a 

 flume over his land, and the right given was merely permis- 

 sive and revocable at any time, the continued maintenance of 

 the flume would not ripen into a prescriptive right: but, if 

 parol consent was given to use the land as though legally con- 

 veyed, the continuance of the use for a statutory period would 

 ripen into a prescriptive right. Gnstin v. Hartiiig. Supreme 

 Court of Wyoming. 121 Pacific 522. 

 BASIS OF APPROPRIATION. 



A settler of 160 acres of government land, who con- 

 structs a ditch or buys a water right with a view to apply 

 water to his land, may use such an amount of water as is suf- 

 ficient to irrigate all his land when needed, provided the 

 water is beneficially used with reasonable diligence in the im- 

 provement of the land ; and the highest aggregate number of 

 acres irrigated by him in any year is not the basis of a first 

 appropriation of water for irrigation. Weldon I'allcy Ditch 

 Co. v. Fanners' Pawnee Canal Co. Supreme Court of Colo- 

 rado. 119 Pacific 1056. 

 WELL CONTRACT. 



A contract for the digging of a well stipulated that the 

 well should furnish 1,000 gallons of water per minute. The 

 well dug did not furnish that amount, and the owner agreed 

 to pay a specified sum for a flow of 800 gallons per minute, 

 but the well when tested did not produce more than 650 gal- 

 lons. Held, that the conditional agreement did not prevent 

 the owner from insisting on full performance of the contract. 



