■ IRRIGATION FROM SAN JOAQUIX RIVER. 245 



the loss by evaporation, etc., would be so great that, after the proper use of the water 

 bj' defendant for irrigation, no water would be left to pass on down the channel of the 

 Chowchilla. He adds that during times of freshets there is abundance of water flow- 

 ing in the Chowchilla throughout its entire course, and prays that the court adjudge 

 defendant entitled to the use of all said water except in times of freshets, and that 

 plaintiff be adjudged entitled to no water from said stream except in time of fresh- 

 ets. This is a case of dispute between two riparian owners on the same stream, and 

 is a question as to how much of the waters of the stream the first owner is entitled to 

 divert and use. Another question also arises, whether his construction of a second 

 dam, farther up the stream, tends to materially diminish the flow of water below his 

 lands. This case illustrates very stronglj- the benefit that would accrue along the 

 Chowchilla by the storing and proper distribution of its flood waters. 



IN THE SUPERIOR COTHIT OF BIEBCED COTJNTT. 



The suit of J. J. Stevenson v. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation 

 Company (No. 1767) is apparently the complaint of a riparian owner and canal cor- 

 poration, entitled to take water from San Joaquin River for irrigation purposes, 

 against another appropriator whose lands, plaintiff claims, are not riparian to the 

 river. The defendant has erected a dam across the San Joaquin above the land of 

 plaintiff, has diverted water thereb}% and has not returned it to said river, wherebj' 

 plaintiff' claims to be damaged to the extent of $10,000, and prays for an injunction 

 preventing defendant from interfering with the flow of said stream. Defendant 

 denies the claim of plaintiff to the use of the water, dating back to 1871, and claims 

 prior right to the use of said water, and also declares that plaintiff is estopped from 

 bringing action by section 318, code of civil procedure, and bj* section-319, Subdi- 

 vision II, and section 338. This case has not yet come to trial. 



TS THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIPOSA COUNTY. 



In the year 1900 a suit was brought in the superior court of Mariposa County 

 by John R. Hite against the Madera Canal and Irrigation Company. He charges 

 the company with diverting the waters of Big Creek and Raynor Creek so that 

 they no longer empty into the Merced River, on certain forks of which Hite's lauds 

 are riparian. He states that prior to the alleged diversion by defendant plain- 

 tiff' used the waters of the South Fork of Merced River for power and irrigation; 

 that one of the tributaries of said South Fork of Merced River is a stream known as 

 Big Creek, and that one of the tributaries of the said Big Creek is a stream called 

 Raynor Creek. That defendant has a dam on Big Creek, bj- means of which certain 

 of its waters are diverted. Plaintiff avers that Raynor Creek, when flowing in its 

 natural course, empties into Big Creek at a point below this diverting dam; but that 

 defendant has constructed a ditch from Ra^^nor Creek to a point in Big Creek above 

 its diverting dam, thereby taking its waters and preventing their flowing in their 

 natural course down to the lands of plaintiff; and, further, that defendant has 

 constructed a ditch connecting Big Creek with Fresno River, and now divert the 

 waters of Big Creek into said river instead of allowing them to return to Merced 

 River, of which Big Creek is a natural tributary, and on the South Fork of which 

 plaintiff's lands are situated. He prays for damages, and that defendant be made 



