180 IRRK4ATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



extensions, and enlargements, it had a capacity at the head, according to evidence 

 later submitted in court, of 2-±S cubic feet per second, and a mile and a quarter below 

 the head 41 cubic feet per second. It then extended to near Cacheville and watered 

 some 300 acres. 



In the summer of ISOi a company of farmers and landowners in the western 

 part of the valley organized the Cottonwood Ditch Company and began a ditch on 

 the south side, starting from a. point near Capay and extending to 1 mile below Madi- 

 son. The ditch was partly constructed and the dam put in, but during the winter it 

 was washed away b}^ the floods. The ditch was never used. 



In 1877 the Capay Ditch Company was organized and 1)egan the construction of 

 another ditch, taking water from the creek at the moflth of the gorge above Capay, 

 near the site of the large dam of the Clear Lake Water Company, of which we have 

 before spoken. They acquired the rights of the Cottonwood Ditch Company (what- 

 ever thej' were). The line of the new construction crossed the old line in several 

 places, but whether the old channel was utilized is not clear. The opening of the 

 Cai)ay Ditch, with its promise of better agricultural methods, was celebrated with 

 rejoicing as an important event in Yolo Count}' history. 



As the use of water extended under the Adams, Capay, and Woodland ditches, it 

 became apparent that at certain seasons there was not water enough for all. The 

 owners of the Adams and Capay ditches were able to harmonize their interests, but 

 between these and the Woodland management there could be no peace. Believing 

 that his rights were invaded, and fearing that the continuous adverse use of the water 

 bj' the upper ditches might ripen into a claim which would ultimately dispossess him 

 of his rights, Moore was again compelled to get into court. 



In 1882 the case of James Moore v. The Capay and Adams Ditch companies 

 appears in the records of the superior court of Yolo County. A temporary injunc- 

 tion was asked restraining each of the above companies from taking water from 

 Cache Creek, and asking for an adjudication of the rights of the plaintiff and defend- 

 ant. Moore now claimed 20,000 inches under a tt-inch pressure (400 cubic feet per 

 second). His claim is based on — 



(1) Appropriation of this volume of water, alleging ownership of a ditch with 

 capacity to carr}' the amount claimed. 



(2) The right of a riparian owner, alleging ownership of riparian lands to the 

 amount of 1,056^ acres. 



For answer the Capay Ditch Company denies the plaintifi''s appropriation exceeds 

 600 inches (10 cubic feet per second), and alleges — 



(1) Ownership of Capay Ditch and appropriation and use of 10,000 inches of 

 water flowing under a i-inch pressure (200 cubic feet per second). 



(2) Ownership of 5,697.36 acres of land by its stockholders, and the rights of its 

 stockholders and riparian owners to use the water for' the irrigation of their land. 



{'■■'>) Prescription bj' adverse use under claim of use for more than five years. 

 The answer of Adams also denies that the plaintiff's appropriation exceeds 500 

 inches. He, too, alleges — 



(1) Ownership of land on the stream. 



(2) Ownership of ditch and the appropriation of 8,000 inches of water under a 

 4-inch jv'essure (1()() cubic feet per second). 



(3) Kight by prescription. 



