204 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



Irrigated, season of 1900, 260 acres. Period of irrigation from November to June. Charges $1.50 for 

 each irrigation. Contract lien on crop and money jtayable directly after Irrigation, otherwise interest 

 charged. Twelve inches of water sufficient. Alfalfa 4 crops, 2 wettings, 3 tons to the acre. 



Spreckles Sugar Company, Kings City. Three 10-incli wells, 79, 80, and 81 feet deep, and 24 feet 

 apart. Water rises to within 8 feet of surface of the ground. Pumping lowers water level 23 feet. Pump 

 in pit 8 feet deep, and throws 13,000 gallons per hour. Pump 24 hours per day. Irrigate 4J acres iier 

 day, using contour checks. Cut 4 crops of alfalfa, 2 to 3 tons per acre, and irrigate after every crop. 

 Surface water in adobe at 21 feet. Irrigation wets down 12 feet. Can irrigate 12,270 acres. Irrigated 

 by Salinas Valley Water Company from Salinas Canal, 20 acres; from San Lorenzo Canal, 1,200 acres. 



Plant on river at the Kings City Bridge. Can pump 60,000 gallons per minute with a 48-foot lift. 

 Burn 15 to 18 cords of willow and cottonwood i^er day, cost $1.40 per cord; will cost 13.50 or $4 per 

 cord. Irrigate by checks 22 inches high, 50 by 60 feet. Soil, sediment. Can irrigate 2,000 acres. 

 One irrigation in winter sufficient for grain or beets. 



CASES ON IRRIGATION AND WATER RIGHTS ARISING IN THE COUNTIES OF 

 MONTEREY, SAN BENITO, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO, DECIDED BY THE CALI- 

 FORNIA SUPREME COURT. 



As was said before, there has been little water-right litigation in the Salinas 

 Valley. The cases decided, with the exception of two alreadj' cited, involve no 

 general irrigation questions. In Burrows v. Burrows the court held that the failure 

 to post a notice does not invalidate an appropriation. In San Luis Water Company 

 V. Estrada it was held that an appropriator can change the point of his diver.sion. 

 Below are given the syllabi of the decisions in the irrigation cases arising in the 

 vallej'. 



ZIMMLER V. SAN LTTIS WATER COMPANY. 



(57Cal.,221.) 



Facts. — PlaintiiTs intestate was a riparian owner on San Luis Obispo Creek, and 

 as such diverted part of the water for irrigating his land. Defendant relied upon a 

 deed from plaintiff's intestate which recited that whereas parties of second part were 

 about to divert the water of San Luis Obispo Creek for the purpose of supplying 

 San Luis Obispo with water, therefore part}' of first part granted "the right to 

 convey water in iron pipes over and across the lands of the said party of the first 

 part." Defendant claimed that this acted as an estoppel. 



Held. — There is no direct grant of water. The plaintiff's intestate did not admit 

 the right of defendant to divert the water. Therefore plaintiff is not estopped from 

 denying defendant's right. If the recital had been that defendant had diverted the 

 water, the case would have been different and there might be an estoppel. 



GREEN V. CAROTTA. 



(72Cal., 267.) 



Facts. — Plaintiff bi'ought an action to perpetuallj' enjoin defendants from dis- 

 turl)ing the flow of an alleged natural stream. Originally the water was contained 

 in a lagoon on defendants' land. More than ten years before suit a former owner 

 of both parcels cut a ditch for the purpose of drainage and irrigation. Defendants 

 used all of such water adversely to the whole world, except some which they allowed 

 to go to waste. No adverse claim was set up against them for more than ten years 



