The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1907-05-31
WATER RIGHTS INVOLVED
Opinion Filed by Judge Chad
wick in Superior Court.
Status of Original Appropriations o.
Water Rights and Subsequent
Appropriations Defined.

An opinion was filed last Friday morn.
ing by Judge Chadwick in the superior
court in the case of John B. Evans and
wife vs.. John H. RAIDER and wife, in
which water rights and the question OF
irrigation are involved. The opinion
touches upon points not heretofore de-
cided by the courts. The opinion filed is
quite lengthy and il briefly summarized
as below given.
On the 18th day OF December, 1905,
plaintiffs acquired title to lots / and 2
and the NWA Of section IA, township 4
N, r 45 e, W. NJ. For a long time prior
to that date this property had been
owned by John HI. Evans, father Of
plaintiff, who had during all of that time
cultivated tract OF land, being about
Is to acres, to fruit trees, small fruits
and garden. The land is arid and is
unfit for cultivation without irrigation.
In 1861 the land was occupied by one
SilcOtt, who impOunded and diverted the
waters of a spring in the canyon running
through said premises known as Whites
canyon, and put in a system Of irriga
tion bitches. This property passed
through several hands, finally, in 1888,
passing into the possession OF John H.
Evans, who went farther up the gulch
Afterwards be dug a tunnel 80 or rs
feet back into the bank, gathering the
waters into a defined channel. He also
put in a reservoir. This system was
used until 1908 The system, however,
appears to have been crude, the loss Of
water from the intake to the point of it's
final disposal being at least half. The
theory Of the plaintiffs is that they are
entitled to water sufficient to fill a two
inch pipe from the intake to the outlet of
their system.
In 1894 the defendants settled in said
canyon at a point probably three quar-
ters Of a mile above the point of Evans
diversion. They built house and barn,
and since that time have opened ditch
and have diverted sufficient water to
irrigate seven or eight acres of land
about their premises, upon which they
have raised crops since 1894.
On the Goth and Dist of July, 1906,
measurements Of the waters in said can
yon were taken by 0. l.. Waller, pro-
lessor of hydraulics at the Washington
State College.
The Evanses contend that inasmuch as
at a certain time prior to the settlement
Of the Raiders their predecessors had con-
structed system which at the point of
diversion was capable of carrying SO
gallons of water per minute, that they
are entitled to that amount without
of their system or the amount of land
irrigated, and that being so it is imma-
terial what they do with the water or
whether they Use it at all; that the mere
making Of an irrigation system capable
OF carrying a certain amount Of water,
or, for the sake OF argument, say all the
water flowing, is sufficient to preclude
any other appropriation, it being an in
corporeal hereditament and a vested
right, against which an estoppel cannot
run.
On the other hand the defendants con
tend that the Evanses cannot claim any
more water than they have appropriated
to a beneficial use, and that the testi-
mony does not show that they have
appropriated to a beneficial use more
than one half Of the waters flowing in
said canyon.
The findings of Judge Chadwick are
quite lengthy, and in a condensed form
he finds that an appropriation who claims
a certain quantity of water for irrigating
a particular tract of land, although he