THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



113 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



ABANDONMENT. 



To constitute an abandonment of riparian water 

 rights by nonuser, the nonuser must have been con- 

 tinuous for the 10-year period constituting the statute 

 of limitations for commencing actions to recover 

 realty ; L. O. L. 6546, relating to the abandonment 

 of the right to appropriate water by neglecting to use 

 the ditch for a year, not applying. Hedges v. Riddle. 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. 127 Pacific 548. 

 PARTIES TO SUIT. 



Consumers of water taken by statutory appropria- 

 tion from a public stream, who obtained their rights 

 by contract from the appropriating Company, have no 

 direct right in the water which makes them necessary 

 parties to an action against the company for an in- 

 fringement of the right of appropriation of another 

 appropriator, and a right to have them made parties 

 was waived by a failure to object. Biggs v. Miller. 

 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 147 Southwestern 

 632. 

 DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. 



Act May 14, 1903 (Kurd's Rev. St. 1911, c. 42, 

 204-209), requiring upper drainage districts to pay 

 lower districts for benefits received by enlargement 

 or improvement of ditches, or drains of the lower 

 districts, etc., is unconstitutional, in that it gives the 

 upper districts no remedy to recover from the lower 

 districts benefits conferred upon them by improve- 

 ments constructed by the upper districts and this de- 

 prives the upper districts of the equal protection of 

 the laws. Bay Island Drainage & Levee Dist. No. i \. 

 Union Drainage No. I. Supreme Court of Illinois. 

 99 Northeastern 385. 

 INTERFERENCE WITH USE OF WATER. 



Where a decree, in a suit to restrain defendants 

 from interfering with plaintiff's use of three cubic feet 

 of water from a creek for agricultural lands, granted 

 to plaintiff all that he asked for, without an included 

 provision that plaintiff should construct a gate in de- 

 fendants' dam, such as would allow sufficient water to 

 pass the dam to fill plaintiff's right, and that defend- 

 ants should construct in the head of their ditch in 

 the dam a head gate to regulate the flow of water in 

 the ditch, the provision was unauthorized. Masanarez 

 v. Rominger. Court of Appeals of Colorado. 127 

 Pacific 241. 

 CONDEMNATION UNDER RECLAMATION ACT. 



The power conferred on the Secretary of the 

 Interior by Reclamation Act June 17, 1902 c. 1093, 

 7, 32 Stat. 389 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p 666), 

 to condemn lands necessary for use in constructing ir- 

 rigation works, is not subject to limitation by state 

 statutes relating to the exercise of the power of em- 

 inent domain of the state, nor is its exercise governed 

 by a state procedure requiring the necessity of the 

 taking in each particular case to be determined by a 

 local commission, but such necessity is a matter to be 

 determined by the Secretary, whose decision is not 

 reviewable by the courts. United States v. O'Neill. 

 U. S. District Court, District of Colorado. 198 Fed- 

 eral 677. 



Where a deed of conveyance describes real prop- 

 erty as "lots three and four and the east half of the 

 southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of section 

 numbered eighteen in township numbered three, north 

 of range numbered two east of Boise Meridian. Idaho, 

 save and excepting therefrom the northeast quarter 

 of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter 

 thereof, containing three hundred fourteen and thirty- 

 three hundredths acres, * * * together with the 

 water and water rights used in connection therewith, 

 being the right to demand and receive upon the terms 

 and under the rules and regulations prescribed there- 

 for thirty-five inches of the water of the Nampa and 

 Meridian irrigation ditch canal, formerly known as 

 the Ridenbaugh canal, together with one hundred 

 ninety-two shares of the paid-up water stock of the 

 New York Canal Company, Ltd., aggregating one 

 hundred eighty-eight and six-hundredths inches of the 

 said water," and said deed also contains the follow- 

 ing provision, "together with all and singular the 

 tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances there- 

 unto belonging or in any wise appertaining, * * * 

 to have and to hold all and singular the above men- 

 tioned and described premises together with the ap- 

 purtenances unto the party of the second part," such 

 deed clearly shows the intent of the parties to convey 

 the water rights used in connection with said land and 

 described in the conveyance, and that such description 

 does not include other water rights appurtenant to 

 said land, and not described. Paddock v. Clark. Su- 

 preme Court of Idaho. 126 Pacific 1053. 

 IRRIGATION CONTRACT. 



Complainant, a state corporation, made an ap- 

 propriation of the greater part of the water of the 

 Colorado river for the irrigation of lands in Mexico 

 and the Imperial Valley in California, which were then 

 public lands owned by the United States and the state. 

 The lands were desert lands, and there was no other 

 source from which they could be irrigated. Com- 

 plainant's canal commenced in California, extended 

 into Mexico, and back across the boundary. It or- 

 ganized a company in Mexico to have charge of that 

 part of its works, of which it owned all of the stock. 

 It also later organized subordinate mutual compan- 

 ies, each of which was to furnish water for the irriga- 

 tion of certain designated lands in the valley to its 

 stockholders who were required to be owners of such 

 lands and to purchase one share of stock for each 

 acre to be irrigated. They were also required to pay 

 rates for the water which was to be supplied by the 

 Mexican Company. Held, tha't a contract between 

 complainant and such local company, by which the 

 latter agreed that complainant should have all of its 

 capital stock with the right to sell the same to settlers 

 at such prices as it might fix and keep he proceeds, 

 the effect of which was to enable complainant to 

 charge such settlers for the water rights to their 

 lands, was void for want of consideration. Imperial 

 Water Co. No. 5 v. Holabird. U. S. Circuit Court of 

 Appeals. 197 Federal 4. 



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

 TION AGE and bound copy of THE PRIMER or IRRIGA- 

 TION. If you desire a copy of The Primer of Hy- 

 draulics add $2.50 to above price. 



