Imperial Valley press and the Imperial press., 1906-06-16

the purpose of the regulation and con
 trol of waters appropriated and used for
 irrigation, as distinguished from waters
 supplied to cities. this act was super
 seded by the act of 1885, which pro-
 vides that whenever a petition of not
 less than twenty-five inhabitants who
 are taxpayers of any county of the state
 shall be presented to the board of super
 visors thereof to regulate and control
 the compensation to be collected by any
 appropriated water, the board of super
 visors, after complying with certain
 procedure for determining the proper
 maximum rate of charge, may fix the
 maximum rate which the corporation
 may charge.
 Subsequently, by act of 1897, this act
 of 1885 was amended as follows;
 Nothing in this act contained (refer-
 ring to the act of 1885 shall be construed
 to prohibit or invalidate any contract already made, or which shall hereafter
 be made, by or with any of the persons associations or corporations described in section 2 of this act, relat- ing to the sale, rental or distribution of water, or to the sale or rental of ease ments and servitudes of the right to the flow and use of water nor to prohibit or interfere with the vesting of rights un- der any such contract"
 There is nothing in the constitution which renders invalid or in any way af- fects the contract which has been enter ed into by the appropriator of water for sale outside of cities or towns, and the user, and the amendment of 1897 of the act of 1883 expressly recognizes the val idity of any contract which has thus been entered into between the user and the appropriator.
 This question was directly involved in the case of the Fresno Irrigation and Canal company vs. Park, 129 Cal. 437. This was case in which the Fresno IT, rigation and Canal Company, plaintiff in the suit, appropriated certain waters of the Kings river for the purpose of disposing of the waters and collecting annual rents and charges therefor. The predecessors in interest of the defendant entered into an agreement with the Fresno Canal etc. company under which they agreed to pay $100 year for the use of the water for given time. The defendant Park, successor in interest of the original contractors, refused to pay the amount of the charge agreed upon, and action was brought by the Fresno and Canal company for the purpose of collecting the amount due under the contract, it being admitted that if the predecessor in interest of the defendant was liable, the defendant him. self was liable, because of provision in the contract making the charge a lien upon the land.
 We now quote portions of the decis- ons of the court in this case. the appel ant being the defendant and owner of the land, and the respondent, the Fresno Irrigation and Canal company:
 1.-The parts of the constitution relied on by appellants are sections l and 2 of article XIV. The first clause of section is as follows: The use of all water now appropriated, or that may hereafte" be appropriated, for sale, rental, or dis is hereby declared to be public use, and subject to the regulation md control of the state in the manner 70 be prescribed by the law The rest ,f the section applies exclusively to cases where water is supplied to incorporated ,ities or towns, or to that other kindEo known as d consolidated city and county so that the parts of he section other than the first clause leed not be here nsidered--except so ar as they throw light upon the mean ng of section 2 and upon certain statu- ory law. Now, there is nothing in the aid first clause of section above quot d which, in itself, at all affects the val dity of the contract in question in the ase at bar. The clause merely declares hat the use of water appropriated for IirtributiOn. etc. is A public use. and