THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



155 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



AGREEMENT TO FURNISH WATER. 



An irrigation company, on acquiring a right of 

 way over plaintiff's land, entered into a written con- 

 tract by which it agreed to furnish him four cubic 

 feet of water per second, to be delivered from boxes 

 to be constructed and maintained by the company at 

 places upon its land designated by plaintiff not ex- 

 ceeding eleven in number, "provided the total capacity 

 of all of said boxes shall not exceed four cubic feet 

 of water per second," and that the grantor should 

 have the right at all times to open and close the 

 boxes as he wished. 'Held, in an action for an in- 

 junction and for damages, that plaintiff, in order to 

 secure the delivery of the agreed amount of water, 

 was not required to use all the boxes at the same 

 time, running at their full capacity to supply the 

 total amount, but was entitled to use such of the boxes 

 as he might wish, the total capacity of which should 

 not exceed four cubic feet of water per second. 

 Animas Consol. Ditch Co. v. Smalhvood. Court of 

 Appeals of Colorado. 125 Pacific 594. 

 IRRIGATION CHARGES. 



Where a water rate was duly and regularly fixed 

 by a board of commissioners for the year 1901, and 

 after being attacked by the canal company upon the 

 ground that the rate was too low, and the order of 

 the board of commissioners fixing such rate was sub- 

 sequently affirmed and approved by the court, and in 

 1903 the company petitioned the board to establish 

 a new rate, and the board of commissioners after a 

 hearing established the same rate that had been es- 

 tablished in 1901, and upon application of the canal 

 company such rate was vacated and set aside by the 

 court as being too low, and no further action was 

 taken by the board of commissioners, and the matter 

 was not further called to the attention of the board 

 by the canal company, held, that the old rate estab- 

 lished in 1901 remained in force and effect until a 

 new rate was established, and that the canal company 

 could not charge and collect from water consumers 

 an additional water rate established and exacted by 

 such company which was in excess of the rate estab- 

 lished by order of the board of commissioners in 1901. 

 Green v. Jones. Supreme Court of Idaho. 126 Pa- 

 cific 1051. 

 IDAHO IRRIGATION STATUTE. 



Rev. Codes -Idaho, 1644, subd. 12, which ex- 

 empts from taxation irrigation canals and ditches and 

 appurtenant water rights used by the owner exclu- 

 sively for the irrigation of lands owned by him, must 

 be limited in its application to cases where the land on 

 which the water is used is situated within the state. 

 Such statute, however, fairly construed, applies to and 

 exempts irrigation works owned by a corporation, the 

 stockholders of which own the lands irrigated ; but 

 under a provision herein that, in case any water is 

 sold or rented from any such canal or ditch, the same 

 shall be taxed to the extent of such sale or rental, 

 where the corporation which constructed the works 

 sold all the land irrigated, with a perpetual right to 



a certain quantity of water thereon, retaining owner- 

 ship of the works and water right with the right to 

 sell or use any surplus and to collect a fixed sum from 

 each user to cover maintenance and operating ex- 

 penses, the works are taxable. Spokane Valley Land 

 & Water Co. v. Kootenai County, Idaho. U. S. Dis- 

 trict Court, District of Idaho. 199 Federal 481. 

 WELL DRILLING CONTRACT. 



Where a well driller, under contract to drill a 

 well until he found water and to find water or re- 

 ceive no pay, drilled 59 feet after discovering water 

 which flowed at the rate of 3 l / 2 gallons an hour, he 

 thereby conclusively showed that he understood the 

 term "water," as used in the contract, to mean water 

 in appreciable quantities ; and the contract was to be 

 construed in accordance with this understanding. 

 Turner v. Hartsell. Court of Appeals of Alabama. 

 58 Southern 950. 



ADJUDICATION OF PRIORITIES. 



In contests involving the rights of rival appro- 

 priators of the waters of a river, it was error to deny 

 a certificate of. appropriation to contestees, where 

 their grantor had complied with the law in force when 

 she filed her statement and claim for a water right, 

 where the water had been applied to the land which 

 was reclaimed and cultivated thereby, her right had 

 never been declared forfeited, and no attempt had 

 been made to forfeit it, and where contestees were in 

 possession of the ditch at least jointly with contestant, 

 and were and had been for years using it to irrigate 

 their lands. Collett v. Morgan. Supreme Court of 

 Wyoming. 128 Pacific 626. 



CONTRACT TO PURCHASE PUMPING PLANT. 



The contract of an irrigation district to purchase 

 a pumping plant, by which it agreed with the seller 

 as to the basis of the amount of bonds needed, and 

 bound itself to complete the purchase as soon as it 

 could legally do so after the approval of the state en- 

 gineer, and then without delay to call an election for 

 voting the bonds required to pay for the pumping 

 plant, though dependent on the approval of the state 

 engineer and the election, was not thereby rendered 

 ultra vires. Board of Directors of Payette-Oregon 

 Slope Irr. Dist. v. Peterson. Supreme Court of Ore- 

 gon. 128 Pacific 837. 



CHANGE OF PLACE OF USE. 



A change of the place of use of the waters will 

 not be permitted where to do so will damage another 

 appropriator. Hall v. Blackman. Supreme Court of 

 Idaho. 126 Pacific 1047. 



WATER RATES. 



Where a water rate has once been fixed by a 

 board of county commissioners in conformity with 

 the statute, and the means is provided by the statute 

 whereby the water or canal company may apply to 

 have a new rate established at any time they deem the 

 old rate insufficient, the canal or water company is 

 relegated to such remedy, and, after having a new 

 rate fixed by the board set aside on the ground that 

 it is too low and unreasonable, it may not establish 

 its own water rate to be charged consumers, but must 

 go to the board of commissioners to have its petition 

 again considered and a reasonable rate established. 

 Green v. Jones. Supreme Court of Idaho. 126 Pa- 

 cific 1051. 



