304 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. 



Sess. Laws 1909, c. 146, authorizing a majority in number 

 of holders to title to lands susceptible of irrigation from the 

 same general source, and representing a majority in acreage, 

 may petition for the establishment of an irrigation district, 

 and declaring that the provisions of the act shall be liberally 

 construed, etc., does not disqualify one from signing a petition 

 by reason of any special interest ; and stockholders of a cor- 

 poration, interested in effecting a sale of the property of 

 the corporation to the district sought to be organized, are 

 not disqualified from signing the petition and taking part in 

 the organization of the district, or in any of the proceedings 

 thereafter looking to a completion of the sale. O'Neill v. 

 Yellowstone Irr. Dist. Supreme Court of Montana. 121 

 Pacific 283. 

 IRRIGATION COMPANY. 



A contract having been entered into between the Land & 

 Water Company and the Canal Company, whereby the Land 

 & Water Company transferred its entire interests in and to 

 the dams, ditches, water rights, etc., to the Canal Company, 

 and also thereafter transferred to said Canal Company 

 42,174.51 shares of unsold water rights and authorized the 

 latter corporation to sell said shares or water rights under 

 the provisions of the original contract with the state, and said 

 Canal Company upon proper application made by one who 

 had purchased lands of the state embraced within said pro- 

 ject, refused to sell the purchaser a water right for the 

 irrigation of the lands so purchased, held, under said con- 

 tract and the law, that the Canal Company should be com- 

 pelled by mandate to issue to such purchaser the water rights 

 prayed for. State v. Tivin Falls Canal Co. Supreme Court 

 of Idaho. 121 Pacific 1039. 

 SUIT AGAINST RECLAMATION OFFICER. 



Reclamation Act June 17,1902, c. 1093, 32 Stat. 388 (U. S. 

 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 596), by which the government ad- 

 vances the cost of reclamation works, and collects from pur- 

 chasers of the lands benefited only sufficient to reimburse it 

 for the expenditure, is not a "revenue law" within the mean- 

 ing of Rev. St. 643 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 521), which 

 provides for the removal of suits brought in state courts 

 "against any officer appointed under or acting by authority 

 of any revenue law of the United States" on account of any 

 act done under color of his office, and a suit against the of- 

 ficer in charge of reclamation work to determine water rights 

 in a stream is not removable by him thereunder. Nor is there 

 any reason of public policy why such suit should be trans- 

 ferred to the federal courts, as by the terms of the act the 

 rights of the government as an appropriator of water are 

 governed by the laws of the state and are no greater than 

 those of any other user. TIC-HI Falls Canal Co., Limited, v. 

 Footc. U. S. Circuit Court, District of Idaho. 192 Federal 

 582. 

 VALUATION OF IRRIGATION PLANT. 



Under the Constitution and laws of California which de- 

 clare the use of the waters of the state appropriated for sale, 

 rental, or distribution to be a public use, and the right to col- 

 lect compensation therefor a franchise subject to regulation 

 by law, an irrigation company diverting water from a stream 

 for distribution through its canals is merely an intermediate 

 agency between the public, which is the owner of the water, 

 and the owners of the land to which it is applied, who are the 

 real appropriators and owners of the water right, which runs 

 with the land, and is based upon and measured and limited by 

 the bene'ficial use made of the water. The company has no 

 property in the water or the water right, aside from its fran- 

 chise, to distribute and collect compensation therefor which 

 a county board is required to consider in estimating the value 

 of its property as a basis for fixing rates to be charged con- 

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

 is entitled to have its franchise valued. San Joaquin & Kings 

 River C. & I. Co., Inc., v. Stanislaus County. U. S. Circuit 

 Court, Northern District of California. 191 Federal 875. 

 TITLE TO DITCH RIGHTS. 



Where, in an action to quiet title to ditch rights, it was 

 an issue whether plaintiff and his predecessors had acquired 

 a ditch right by prescription, the deed to plaintiff from his 

 grantor conveying the land with appurtenances, but not 

 . specifically mentioning the ditch, was admissible in evidence, 

 since, if plaintiff's grantor had at the time acquired the ditch 

 right by prescription, it passed to plaintiff as an appurtenance. 

 McDonnell v. Huffine. Supreme Court of Montana. 120 

 Pacific 792. 



CONSENT OF RIPARIAN OWNER. 



Where the pleadings showed that the plaintiff and one 

 of the defendants in an action to establish water rights to 

 enjoin diversion by upper riparian users were riparian owners 

 claiming as appropriators, and that the other defendants 

 owned no lands, either riparian or away from the river, but 

 merely conveyed water to such lands, the parties were before 

 the court in the character of appropriators and not as riparian 

 owners. Caviness v. La Grande Irrigation Company. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 119 Pacific 731. 

 ADVERSE USE. 



Where defendant never did any act which notified plain- 

 tiffs or their grantees that he intended to claim a right to 

 constantly divert the waters of the stream or deny their 

 right to use the same .share that they had previously employed 

 while defendant's grantor occupied the land, limitations would 

 not attach in favor of defendant's claim to the use of all the 

 water from the fact that at times defendant used all the 

 water, such being his privilege, unless plaintiff's grantors were 

 in need of an amount equal to their diversions. McCoy v. 

 Huntley. Supreme Court of Oregon. 119 Pacific 481. 

 DAMAGES FOR REMOVAL OF FLUME. 



Where an owner of land removed a flume therefrom, 

 for the construction of which he had granted a license, and 

 the removal rendered a considerable portion of a ditch of 

 which the flume was a part valueless, the value of the por- 

 tion of the flume destroyed, or the cost of replacing it, would 

 not be the proper measure of damages, as plaintiff could not 

 go upon defendant's premises to reconstruct it, and he was 

 not required to institute legal proceedings to prevent inter- 

 ference with the flume, so that an instruction that the rule of 

 damages was such immediate and direct damage sustained 

 "both to the flume and to the ditch itself, or to any part or 

 portion of the ditch," was correct. Jones v. Bondurant. Court 

 of Appeals of Colorado. 130 Pacific 1047. 

 WATER RIGHTS. 



A petition which alleges that plaintiffs were the owners 

 and in possession of land described, in the semiarid region of 

 the state, that the lands had been supplied with water for irri- 

 gation from a ditch under an ancient grant, that defendant 

 operated another ancient ditch under an ancient grant for the 

 irrigation of other lands described, that the two ditches had 

 been continuously used by the owners of the lands, who had 

 shared in the use of the water proportionately, that defendant 

 unjustly began to use practically all of the waters, and during 

 a season unreasonably consumed practically all of the avail- 

 able water, and thereby deprived plaintiffs of their just pro- 

 portion, causing damages alleged in detail, and which prays 

 for an injunction, states a cause of action for the determina- 

 tion of the water rights of the parties. San Juan Ditch 

 Company v. Cassin. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 141 

 Southwestern 815 

 DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO REPAIR PUMPING PLANT. 



A lease of rice land bound the lessor to repair an irrigat- 

 ing plant on the land, and he did in fact make most of the 

 repairs, especially those specifically named in the lease, within 

 a reasonable time, but was unable to put a suction pipe in 

 place so that it might be used in pumping water. The pipe 

 was not specifically mentioned in the lease. Held, that if the 

 tenant could, at small expense, by the exercise of reasonable 

 diligence, have put the suction pipe in place so as to have 

 pumped the water, he could not recover for damage to the 

 crop from failure to have sooner made the pumping plant 

 available because of the absence of the suction pipe, especially 

 as the tenant had been allowed to retain a considerable sum 

 due for rent to apply on the expense of making repairs ; the 

 general rule that the tenant may rely upon a landlord's cov- 

 enant to make repairs and recover for the depreciation in 

 rental value resulting from his failure to do so not applying. 

 Reinking v. Goodell. Supreme Court of Iowa. 133 North- 

 western 774. 



RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION PROMPTLY. 



Do not delay to remit One Dollar for renewal 

 of your subscription to THE IRRIGATION ACF. You cannot 

 get along without it. 



SUBSCRIBE NOW! 



No one interested in Irrigation can afford to 'be with- 

 out THE IRRIGATION AGE : 480 pages of reading matter per 

 year for only One Dollar. 



