THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



401 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



"RIGHTS AND FRANCHISES." 



In Rev. Codes, 1615, providing that a proposal to con- 

 struct irrigation works shall state the price at which per- 

 petual water rights will be sold to the settlers, such rights to 

 embrace a proportionate interest in the canal or other water- 

 works together with the rights and franchises attached thereto, 

 the term "rights and franchises" means water rights as well 

 as all other rights, including dams, canals, ditches, laterals, etc. 

 State v. Twin Falls Canal Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 121 

 Pacific 1039. 

 INTEREST IN IRRIGATION WORKS. 



Rev. Codes, 1615, providing that a proposal to' con- 

 struct irrigation works shall state the terms on which per- 



Artesian Well, L. A. Norland's Ranch, La Jara, Colorado. 



petual water rights will be sold, such rights to embrace a pro- 

 portionate interest in the canal or other irrigation works, 

 contemplates that each owner of a water right has a propor- 

 tionate interest in the entire irrigation works. State v. Twin 

 Falls Canal Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 121 Pacific 1039. 

 PRIORITIES. 



One who purchases a water right from a canal or ditch 

 company that has made its appropriation for the purpose of 

 sale, rental, or distribution thereof, acquires no priority until 

 he complies with the provisions of section 5, art. 15, of the 

 Constitution, and settles upon or improves the land with a 

 view of receiving water for agricultural purposes, and when 

 he does so settle upon land or improve it with diligence and 

 good faith, he is entitled to have his priority date from the 

 time of making such settlement or beginning such improve- 

 ment. Mellen v. Great Western Beet Sugar Co. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 122 Pacific 30. 



APPROPRIATION. 



One who actually settles upon or improves land lying 

 tinder a canal or irrigation ditch with a view to receiving 

 water therefrom for agricultural purposes is entitled to a 

 priority over one who has previously purchased a water right 

 from such canal company, but who has failed to either settle 

 upon or improve the land as required by the provisions of 

 section 5, art. 15, of the Constitution. Mellen v. Great West- 

 ern Beet Sugar Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 122 Pacific 30. 

 ALTERNATE USE. 



Water may be used alternately by persons entitled to 

 given quantities of the waters of a stream by virtue of a 

 reservation in a grant of water rights. Contrail v. Sterling 

 Mining Co. Supreme Court of Oregon. 122 Pacific 42. 



DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO SUPPLY WATER. 



The measure of damages for the destruction of apple 

 trees for want of water, which have been planted and in a 

 condition to grow, is what such destroyed trees were worth 

 on the premises in their growing state at the time of the 

 destruction, and in determining that question there may be 

 taken into consideration the difference in the value of the 

 kind immediately before the trees were planted, and the value 

 of the land after the trees were planted, which increased 

 value results wholly by reason of the planting of the trees 

 in a growing condition, and not an increase in the value of 

 the land occasioned by anything else. Hanes v. Idaho Irr. Co., 

 Limited. Supreme Court of Idaho. 122 Pacific 859. 

 IRRIGATION CONTRACT. 



That provision of the state contract which authorizes the 

 irrigation company to charge and assess the purchasers of 

 water rights in said system not to exceed 35 cents per acre 

 per season for each acre of land for which a water right has 

 been purchased for maintenance purposes does not require 

 the purchaser of a water right to pay such maintenance fee 

 or charge until the same has been fixed by the company. 

 Hanes v. Idaho Irr. Co., Limited. Supreme Court of Idaho. 

 122 Pacific 859. 

 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



Rem. & Bal. Code, 6327, which provides that any per- 

 son owning lands, who is not the riparian proprietor, or who, 

 being such, has not sufficient frontage to attain a sufficient 

 flow of water to irrigate his lands, shall be entitled to a 

 right of way to lands lying between his own and the stream, 

 or above and below it, does not give a right to take water 

 already appropriated, or take away the rights of a superior 

 riparian owner. Miller v. Baker. Supreme Court of Wash- 

 ington. 122 Pacific 604. 



EXCAVATION CONTRACT. 



Where a contract for excavating an irrigation ditch pro- 

 vided different prices for different kinds of excavation, and 

 for payment of 90 per cent of the contract price on monthly 

 estimates of an engineer, plaintiff, by accepting such monthly 

 installments, was not bound by the engineer's classification. 

 Cook v. Green River Mut. Irr. Co. Supreme Court of Utah. 

 121 Pacific 970. 



BRIDGING WORK. 



Laws 1883, p. 261, 38, as amended by Laws 1885, p. 324, 

 provides that persons owning or constructing a ditch across 

 any highway shall keep the highway open for safe travel by 

 constructing bridges over such ditch, to be therefore main- 

 tained by the county, and that all bridges which shall be of 

 greater length than 20 feet shall be constructed and main- 

 tained by the owners of the ditch. Held, that by the "con- 

 struction" of a ditch provided for in the statute is meant not 

 only the original construction, but also any enlargement, and 

 where the necessity for the building of a bridge in excess 

 of 20 feet was created by the enlargement of a canal after 

 the passage of the statute, the canal company was liable for 

 its construction and maintenance, even though the ditch was 

 first built before the passage of the statute and the road 

 crossing it was built after the original construction. People v. 

 Fanners' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. Supreme Court 

 of Colorado. 133 Pacific 645. 



Send $1.00 for 1 year's subscription to the IRRIGA- 

 TION AGE and bound copy of THE PRIMER OF IRRIGA- 

 TION. If you desire a copy of THE PRIMER OF HY- 

 DRAULICS add $2.50 to above price. 



