IRRIGATION PROBLEMS OF HONEY LAKE BASIN. 97 



proportions of stream or ditch than to a specific number of miner's inches. We 

 quote from some of the judgments in "the big .water suit:" 



Defendent Robert Johnston, administrator of estate of Nicholas Lute, deceased, adjudged right to 

 use waters of stream for irrigation of lands described in his answer, and for watering stock and domestic 

 purposes to the extent that they have been heretofore used, as set out in his answer in said cause. 



Defendant Charles Lawson adjudged right to use of waters of Gold Run Creek in same terms as in 

 Defendant Johnston's case. [Language identical.] 



Defendant D. W. Ridenour awarded waters of Gold Run in same terms as two preceding defendants. 



Five defendants received judgments in identical terms, and it would seem that 

 none of them was in a position to know definitel}' what rights he had won as the 

 price of the lawsuit. The end of the case found them precisely where they were at 

 the beginning. 



Defendant W. \. Cain a<ljudged sufficient water to irrigate about 1-8 acres of orchard land and for 

 stock and domestic uses. 



Even the amount of land is left indefinite by the use of the word "about," and 

 no definite quantity of water is mentioned. 



Eleven defendants in the Johnston ville neighborhood were disposed of as follows: 



* * * Adjudicating riparian rights to flow of all waters of stream in natural channels flowing across 

 their said lands. Right to use of water on irrigable lands is shown on plat filed and marked "Exhibit 

 A," by appropriation to amount necessary for production of crops. Each defendant shall return surplus 

 wat^r diverted to the stream, except such as may be conducted to adjacent irrigable lands to other 

 defendants. [Two defendants excepted from requirement as to return of water.] 



Here is a group of important farms the water rights for which, aside from those 

 of riparian character, are expressed in the vague phrase, "amount necessary for 

 production of crops." Who is to say what amount is necessary for the purpose? 

 Supposing rival claimants assert that an unnecessary amount is being used, how is 

 the matter to be settled ? By more lawsuits, of course. There can be nothing final 

 or satisfactory about such an adjudication in a growing country. 



Defendant L. Woodstock: Judgment for suflBcient water for 200 acres [which is described] and 

 for irrigating, stock, and all domestic use thereon. 



The judgment goes on to describe the size of the flume in which the water is to 

 be taken, thereby furnishing some hint as to the extent of the right; but even this 

 is upset by the latter part of the judgment, which saj's the defendant may use "said 

 ditch and flume when same does not interfere with rights of plaintiffs." Who is to 

 say when the plaintiff.s' rights are actually interfered with? If the plaintiffs, then 

 there is no doubt that interference will begin at an early date; if the defendants, 

 then we may predict that there will never be any interference. Nothing is settled 

 by such a decision. It means another lawsuit as soon as dissatisfaction arises on 

 either side. 



Defendants N. Holmes, Otto Ranker, and J. Van Notten: Judgment for 50 inches of water to be 

 diverted by defendants into their ditch at all times when there is water flowing from Susan River into 

 what is known as the Dill Slough and Little Slough, for irrigation, stock, and domestic purposes on 

 their several premises and no other. In times when there is more water than plaintiffs need, defendants 

 may divert and use additional water as they may require. 



Here is another judgment of similar character, but even more bewildering: 



Defendant Charles Hartson: Has right to divert water of Big Slough for irrigation of [land 

 described] and for domestic and stock purposes to extent of one-fourth of waters flowing in said slough 



23856— No. 100—01 7 



