The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1900-04-26
An IMPORTANT DECISION
Judge Davidson Passes Upon the
Rights of Settlers to Waters
of Nenas Greek.
THE OPINION AS RENDERED.
Many Settlers in Large District of Yakima
County Effected by the Result of a
Long Contest

The legal contest between David Long
mire and other settlers on Wenas creek
is of such an important and far-reaching
nature that THE HERALD feels constrained
to publish in almost it's entirety the de-
cision which Judge Davidson handed
down on Monday. The contentious over
the rights to the waters of the creek have
been the cause of much bitter feeling
and some justice court cases, and as the
welfare of that section has a material eff
feet on the progress and prosperity of
the county in general, it is to be hoped
that the decision is just one, although
it is not in line with that rendered by
Judge Sol Smith in the Ahtanum water
cases. An appeal will probably be taken
to the supreme court, but there is gen.
eral hope among citizens that the bitter
ness and strife engendered between neigh
bors on the Wenas may pass away and
that all will work for the common as
well as for personal interests. The de-
cision is as follows:
I'm reviewing the testimony in this
case 1 have found it difficult to arrive at
a decision that can be considered as do
ing absolute justice between the parties
interested. Testimony that covers so
great series OF years is bound to be
more or less unsatisfactory, however
honest witnesses may be in detailing
what they conceive to be the facts, and
it is with much misgiving that APP
proach the decision of case so import
ant, fully approaching as l do the re-
sponsibility involved in the settling OF in
terests so vital to the itigants.
water to arid lands is as the blood to
our system. 1t is the life-giving fluid.
Without water the lands are practically
valueless. and, unfortunately, in this
case,there seems not to be enough water
to satisfy the needs of all who lay clai N
to it, and it necessarily follows that some
who are parties to this suit must suffer
when the final decree is entered. My OBJ
servation has been that in an ARID coun-
try it frequently happens that if man
needs water for his crop and can get it
without a. breach of the peace or violat-
ing decree of court, he will take it,
though another man may have better
right, and a continuous taking in this
manner covering a number of years often
persuades him to think finally that he
has the better right to the water, and on
the strength OF such claim often extern
sive improvements are made. Large
bodies of land are reclaimed from state
from other sources. On the other hand
it sometimes happens that the man who
OF nature and brought into cultivation
without any we'll founded right to any
water to irrigate the same, and results
finally in a total loss OF expended labor
and money unless water can be procured
who is so fortunate as to be the first 10
settle upon, or near stream OF water,
claims the whole OF it, however large the
volume may be. merely if the right OF
discovery is very slight appropriation.
q do not wish to be considered as APP
plying this language to the present case
because they are extreme examples; but
| mention these things simply TO illns
irate some Of the difficulties that are tor
often presented in the settlement Of wa
ter litigation and it further shows that
the courts in adjusting the rights OF par
ties to streams OF water, in applyinl
the established law of the land to thu
facts, when found, Of settlement, appro
priation, riparian proprietorship anc
other ouestions incidental to the determi