382 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



This cause was also appealed to Washington, and on the 1-ith daj' of May, 1900, 

 the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision, affirming the decree of the 

 circuit court regarding annual rates, but again made no decision on the subject of 

 the power of the corporation to sell a water right. 



APPEAL FKOM ORDINANCE OF SUPERVISORS FIXING RATES. 



Pending the appeal of this case the board of supervisors of San Diego County, 

 in response to the application of taxpayers and at the instigation of water takers 

 under the Sweetwater SA'stem, appointed a public hearing, received evidence, and 

 after a long investigation passed an ordinance fixing the domestic rates the same as 

 they had been in the past, and the same as under the ordinance held valid in National 

 City, and the irrigation rate was fixed at $3.50 per acre per annum, as in their 

 judgment sufficient to give the company its legal rights, the same to take effect 

 November 16, 1897. From this ordinance the company appealed to the United States 

 circuit court, in case No. 768, entitled San Diego Land and Town Company i'. James 

 A. Jasper et al. Evidence in this case has been taken, argument was heard June 25, 

 and the case is pending a decision. 



THE NATIONAL CITY CASE, ESTABLISHING THAT DOMESTIC XTSE IS NOT 



SUPERIOR TO IRRIGATION. 



About September, 1898, a suit was brought in the superior court of San Diego 

 County bj^ the city of National City against the San Diego Land and Town Company, 

 which was not resisted by the corporation. It was brought to restrain the corpoi"a- 

 tion by injunction from furnishing anj' water from the small supply then left in 

 the reservoir for any other uses than domestic. The theorj' of the case was that, as 

 the water supply in the reservoir was nearly exhausted, it was needed for domestic 

 use, and such use should take preference over uses for irrigation. The injunction 

 was issued against the companj^ bj' its virtual consent, whereupon it notified all the 

 irrigatoi's to stop irrigating, pursuant to the injunction. The irrigators submitted 

 to this until sometime in December, 1898, when, in view of the fact that their lemon 

 and especially their oiunge crop was suffering for water, a number of them notified 

 the company that the}' proposed to turn on the water for irrigation unless they were 

 made parties defendant and also enjoined. Thereupon these irrigators were made 

 defendants to the injunction suit, a hearing was had and the injunction was dissolved, 

 the court holding that the domestic uses had no superioritj' over those for irrigation. 

 This case was not appealed. 



THE SHARPE CASE. 



In May, 1897, James M. Sharpe brought an action against the San Diego Land 

 and Town Company, in the United States cii"cuit court for the southern district of 

 California, in which he alleged that he was a landowner under the S3'stem; that since 

 1892 the corporation had been suppl3'ing him with water for irrigation, and that in 

 1897 the corporation had shut off his water supply, although he had tendered its 

 established i-ate, which was refused b_v the company, the refusal being accompanied 

 by the statement that such water supplj' would not be continued unless Sharpe would 

 enter into a written contract to pay the sum of $11.60 per acre annually for the land 



