238 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



grantor of plaintiffs appropriated for irrigation purposes the waters of said river to 

 the amount of 17,800 inches, and that said water lias since been used to irrigate the 

 lands of plaintiffs and others. This claim is based on prior appropriation, and also 

 on riparian rights. The specific complaint against defendant is that he is building a 

 canal to take water from the river above the point of diversion of plaintiffs, and will 

 thereby reduce or entirelj- cut off their suppl}-, and an injunction is prayed for. 

 Although this action was begun some seventeen 3'ears ago, subsequent proceedings 

 have not been taken, and the action still remains in the lower court. 



In 1889 an action was brought to establish the validity of the organization of 

 the Madera irrigation district and of its bonds. The right to appropriate water 

 from the river is not questioned — onl}^ the legality of the district organization. The 

 principal opponents of the district were riparian owners, such as Miller & Lux, 

 George D. Bliss, the California Pastoral and Agricultural Company, the Sierra Vista 

 Vineyard Company, and others. The action was decided by the local court in favor 

 of the district. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of the State. The dis- 

 trict, however, while the matter was pending in the supreme court, confessed error, 

 and the order of the trial court was thereupon reversed. 



The case of Chapin v. Albert Brown et al.. No. 4272, brings in the matter of 

 conflict between riparian rights and rights by appropriation. " Plaintiff averred that 

 Whisk}- Creek flowed over and through his lands, and that he used the waters of - 

 said creek for irrigation and domestic purposes. This complaint clearly set up 

 riparian rights. The plaintiff complained that defendants intended to divert the 

 waters of said creek by means of a dam to be built above plaintiff's land, by reason 

 of which plaintiff's water would be cut off or reduced greatly in amount, and he 

 prayed for an injunction. Defendants answei'ed that they also owned certain lands 

 bordering on said stream, and moreover, that they had appropriated certain waters 

 of said creek pursuant to law, and had prosecuted diligently the construction of irri- 

 gation works, thus making their claim both on riparian rights and appropi'iation and 

 use. In this case the law of riparian rights was upheld b_v the trial court. The 

 defendants having been unable to show that the water they proposed to divert was 

 to be used on riparian lands, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintift'. An 

 appeal was taken to the supreme court, which reversed the judgment and remanded 

 the cause for a new trial. The remittitur was filed in 1894. No further action has 

 been taken .since then. This case is a good illustration of the conflict arising 

 between existing riparian rights and rights by appropriation and use. 



The case of Jesse B. Ross v. James Lawson (No. 4821), brought in 1894, involved 

 the question of priority of right Ijy appropriation. Plaintiff' claimed all the waters 

 of Sockanew Creek bj' appropriation and use; defendant claimed 60 inches of said 

 water by appropriation ajid use for five years before the commencement of the suit. 

 Judgment was rendered for the defendant. 



In 1894 Miller & Lux, a corporation, brought a suit against the Fresno Flume 

 and Irrigation Company' (No. 8382), praA'ing for an injunction to prevent defendants 

 from diverting the waters of Mill Creek and its tributaries. Plaintiff' averred that it 

 owned land in the counties of Fresno and Madera, aggregating some 186,700 acres, 

 situated along and bordering on San Joaquin River, and certain sloughs adjacent 

 thereto, and claimed the waters of said streams necessary' for the irrigation and cul- 



