244 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



irrigation of its lands and' the watei'ing of its stock. It also claims that this diversion 

 of the water by Miller & Lux would infringe upon its right and prevent this irriga- 

 tion and watering of the stock. It therefore prays for an injunction, preventing 

 Miller & Lux from making such diversion. The case has not as yet come to trial. 

 Here, as may be seen, all parties claim riparian rights, and rights also by appropria- 

 tion. The question at issue would seem to be whether Miller & Lux, by enlarging 

 and lowering the channel of Cottonwood Creek, so as to divert a greater amount of 

 water into it from Fresno Uiver, would so reduce the flow of the latter stream as to 

 encroach upon the rights of plaintiff and intervener, as riparian owners, and upon 

 the former as prior appropriators. The question as to whether or not Cottonwood 

 Creek is a natural water course is also an important one. 



The case of Goode v. The San Joaquin Electric Company, where damages are 

 claimed by plaintiff b}' reason of diversion of water above his riparian lands, has 

 been tried, decided in favor of plaintiff, with small damages, and has been settled 

 between the parties without appeal to the supreme court. In this case Groode claimed 

 that the defendant company, by constructing a dam to impound water with which to 

 generate electricity, had shut off his supply from the stream on which he owned 

 riparian lands, and where he had been in the habit of watering his stock. The facts 

 seemed to be established to the satisfaction of the court, and small damages were 

 awarded. 



The case of the California Pastoral and Agricultural Company v. George D. 

 Bliss et al. (No. 559) came up in 1898. Plaintiff claimed all the water flowing in 

 Chowchilla Creek, both as riparian owner and by right of actual use for ten years 

 past; that defendants claimed some right in said creek, and have within the last five 

 years built a dam across the channel thereof, which practically diverts all the water of 

 said stream, except in times of flood; and that he, by means of canals, carries said 

 water to another locality, and with it irrigates land distant from the channel of said 

 stream. Plaintiff prays for $10,000 damages, and also to be adjudged the owner of, 

 and entitled to the use of, Chowchilla Creek. Defendant George D. Bliss answers 

 that Chowchilla Creek is a natural channel down to the point where it empties into 

 Ash Slough, and that even in times of freshet a large portion of the water of Chow- 

 chilla Creek flows into and down Ash Slough, and that the only water which flows 

 down the bed of Chowchilla Creek below that point is either superfluous flood water 

 or water which is discharged in Chowchilla Creek by artificial means, that is, the 

 water which is turned back into the Chowchilla from Ash Slough by the Sierra Vista 

 Vineyard Company for the purpose of irrigating lands owned by it bordering on 

 the Chowchilla. Defendant then sets up a claim to water from the Chowchilla as a 

 riparian owner, and claims that he has maintained a dam, known as Montgomery Dam, 

 across the Chowchilla, from 1878 to 1891, for the pui'pose of diverting water for the 

 irrigation of his lands, and has turned back into the Chowchilla all water not absorbed 

 in his process of irrigation. He states, further, that ever since 1878 defendant and his 

 grantois have claimed and used said water, adverselj' to plaintiff, and with plaintiff's 

 knowledge; and that since the erection of a dam by defendant, in 1893, said defend- 

 ant has continued to divert said water and use it for purposes of irrigation, as he has 

 a right to do; and, f urthei', that if all the water of the stream were permitted to run 

 past this dam in section 29 and down to Montgomery Dam, so called, in section 34, 



