100 • IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



upon the advice of their attorae\'. The defendants replaced the flashboards, their 

 opponents took them down, and the process continued for some time, varied with 

 occasional threats of more aggressive action on both sides. The result was that the 

 dam was never used, except for a few hours. The case was finally tried in July, 

 1899, and judgment, as condensed for this report, was rendered as follows: 



Declares dam near mouth of Willow Creek a nuisance and enjoins its maintenance by defendant, 

 as it is now and has heretofore been maintained and used. 



This decision was so unsatisfactorj* to both sides of the controversy that both 

 appealed to the supreme court. The plaintiffs wanted the dam removed and the 

 judgment ordered nothing of the kind. The defendants wanted their rights inter-, 

 preted and to be told how, if the dam was not built in accordance with the stipulation, 

 it could be made to accord with it, thereby giving them the benefits of the water to 

 which they supposed they were entitled without indicting injury upon their neighbors 

 below. The decision shed no light on these questions. The dam was a nuisance, but 

 it could remain. It could not, however, be maintained "as it is now and has hereto- 

 fore been maintained and used." As we have already seen, it has practically not 

 been used at all. Those who built it had thought that the actual use of the dam 

 would furnish the real test as to its compliance, or failure to comply, with the letter 

 and spirit of the stipulation. 



The case is one of much importance to the irrigation industry of Honey Lake- 

 Valley. It is also interesting because of the light it throws upon irrigation law and 

 practice in California, and the judicial decisions based thereon. For this reason it 

 seems worth while to give the merits of the controversy, as they appeared in the 

 testimony and otherwise, from the standpoint both of plaintiffs and defendants. 



MERITS AND LESSONS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 



A few months subsequent to the rendering of the stipulated judgment the 

 plaintiffs in the case sold their interests in the system to Mr. Edward T. Purser. 

 He carried on the work of construction over a period of four j'ears, devoting his 

 expenditure mostly to the increase of reservoir capacities. In 1897 he disposed of his 

 interest to The Associated Colonies, a New York corporation. After a careful study 

 of conditions exi.sting in the valley, the officers of this company realized the startling 

 waste of water resulting from the separate operation of many different ditches and 

 the large gains which might be made b\^ all concerned if the water suppl}' could be 

 handled as a whole. To this end thej' proposed to put their own system on the basis 

 of a cooperative company, so that the ownership of the water and land might be 

 forever united, and to invite the entire community to participate in the undertaking. 

 Meetings were held throughout the valley and committees appointed to represent 

 various interests and communities. The project was cordially approved by many of 

 the oldest appropriators, the argument being that by consolidating all rights and 

 works ill one cooperative company it would not only be possible to administer the 

 existing supply much more economically and harmoniously, but that all would be 

 benefited in addition by the storage of waters which were being wholly wasted. 

 The scope of the proposed operations was well evidenced by the makeup of the board 

 of directors of th(! cooperative company. These represented the following towns 



