184 



THE IKRIGATION AGE. 



the water was originally appropriated use the same, 

 provided, formerly, that the water be applied to the 

 land within a reasonable time, and, now, within the 

 time limited by statute. Enterprise Irr. Dist. v. 7Yi- 

 State Land Co. Supreme Court of Nebraska. 138 

 Northwestern 171. 

 PERMIT BY STATE. 



Where a permit to appropriate public water upon 

 lands belonging to the state is issued by the state en- 

 gineer, such permit is an inchoate right, which may 

 ripen into a legal and complete appropriation only 

 upon the completion of the work and the application 

 of the water to a beneficial use, and confers upon the 

 person to whom the permit is issued no right under 

 such permit against a stranger who subsequently 

 secures from the state a better and higher right than 

 is vested by virtue of the permit. Tobey v. Ridge- 

 zvood. Supreme Court of Idaho. 127 Pacific 178. 

 PROTECTION OF EASEMENT. 



Equity has jurisdiction of a suit by the United 

 States against the owners of land acquired under the 

 public land laws after the passage of Act Aug. 30, 

 1890, c. 837, 1, 26 Stat. 391 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 

 p. 1570), to enjoin them from interfering with its 

 construction of an irrigation canal over such lands 

 under the reservation of right of way therefor con- 

 tained in said act. United States v. Van Horn. U. 

 S. District Court, District of Colorado. 197 Federal 

 611. 

 WATER RIGHT REAL PROPERTY. 



Under the Constitution and statutes of this state, 

 a water right is "real property," and is an appur- 

 tenance to the land irrigated by the use of such water. 

 Paddock v. Clark. Supreme Court of Idaho. 126 

 Pacific 1053. 

 RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNER. 



A riparian owner's right to water for irrigation 

 is limited to the amount of water needed and used, 

 so that, to determine that fact, the amount of land 

 irrigated, the character of the soil, and the amount of 

 water needed per acre must be known. Hedges v. 

 Riddle. Supreme Court of Oregon. 127 Pacific 548. 

 WATER OPTIONS. 



Where G. entered into an agreement with T., 

 B. & P., whereby he gave an option to purchase cer- 

 tain water rights, and it was provided that T., B. & 

 P. should investigate the water supply and the prac- 

 ticability of such project, and if they should find such 

 project practicable they would pay to G. $5,000 in 

 cash and a paid-up water right for 80 acres of land, 

 held, that said contract was an option, and T., B. & 

 P. had the absolute right to determine the sufficiency 

 of the water supply and the practicability of the proj- 

 ect, and that they did determine that said project was 

 not practicable, and so notified G., and thus terminated 

 said option agreement. Card v. Thompson. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 123 Pacific 497. 

 POLLUTION OF WATER COURSES. 



The title of an act which reads "An act to pro- 

 tect the rice planters and owners of the canals who use 

 water for irrigation purposes against pollution of the 

 streams by salt water, oil, and other substances, and 

 also to protect the fish in said streams, and making 

 it a misdemeanor to contaminate said streams by 

 draining or permitting the said water to be drained 

 in said streams" (Act No. 183 of 1910), does not ex- 



press the purpose of punishing any one who fails to 

 post tanks or reservoirs, under certain conditions ; 

 and that part of the act relating to the posting of tanks 

 is therefore unconstitutional, as the Constitution re- 

 quires that the object or purpose of every act should 

 be expressed in its title. State v. Duson. Supreme 

 Court of Louisiana. 58 Southern 159. 

 MEASURE OF DAMAGES. 



Where an irrigation company enters into a con- 

 tract with the state to construct an irrigation system 

 under the Carey Act of Congress (Act Aug. 18, 1894, 

 c. 301, 28 Stat. 372-411), and the laws of the state, 

 and procures the state to place certain land included 

 within said irrigation system on the market, and a 

 person makes a contract with the state for 40 acres of 

 such land, and also makes a contract with the irriga- 

 tion company for water for said land, and makes a 

 payment thereon, and thereafter the irrigation com- 

 pany changes its canals, so that it is unable to furnish 

 water for said tract of land, the correct measure of 

 damages includes such damages as the purchaser has 

 sustained by reason of expenses incurred, labor per- 

 formed, or any outlay of time which he has made un- 

 der the contracts after the execution thereof, and 

 which he has suffered by reason of the failure of the 

 company to comply with the terms of the contract, and 

 in addition thereto all payments on the land and water 

 right, with interest thereon. Sommcrville & Idaho 

 Irr. Co.. Limited. Supreme Court of Idaho, 123 Pa- 

 cific 302. 

 SALE OF IRRIGATION STOCK. 



The purchasers of all the stock of an irrigation 

 company, having the right to divert from a river 31 

 cubic feet of water per second, agreed that the cor- 

 poration would convey to the sellers the water rights 

 owned by it not theretofore conveyed to other parties. 

 It having been ascertained that 25.87 cubic feet had 

 already been conveyed, the corporation subsequently 

 conveyed to the sellers 5.13 cubic feet. Held, that the 

 contract and deed having been made with reference to 

 existing conditions and with knowledge that the water 

 would be delivered through an open canal, the sellers 

 were only entitled to the amount of water then owned 

 by the corporation and not previously conveyed ; and 

 hence, in an action for failure to furnish water, it 

 was competent for defendants to show that, by rea- 

 son of seepage and evaporation, the water rights which 

 it then owned were insufficient to supply those to 

 whom conveyances had previously been made, al- 

 though, before the bringing of the action, the corpora- 

 tion acquired additional water rights out of which it 

 could have supplied the sellers. Lombard v. Schlot- 

 feldt. Supreme Court of Washington. 123 Pacific 

 787. 

 "APPROPRIATION." 



The diversion of a definite quantity of water from 

 the channel of a stream by the owner of land on the 

 stream claiming right thereto as against other users 

 not prior in time, is a claim by "appropriation," re- 

 gardless of whether the water is diverted from the 

 channel on his riparian land or beyond its boundaries. 

 Little Walla Irr. Union v. Finis Irr. Co. Supreme 

 Court of Oregon. 124 Pacific 666. 

 RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 



The extent of a riparian owner's right to use 

 (Continued on page 197) 



