The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1907-06-06
Limits Water
FOR IRRIGATION

Colfax, Wash, May 30.-A case of
more than ordinary interest and of
importance to the iIrigating inter ests
OF the state has just been decided by
Judge Chadwick of the superior court.
The case was that of Evans, ct ux.
versus John Ii. RAIDER ct ux., an ac-
tion asking for a permanent injunc-
tion restraining the defendants from
using water in canyon leading into
Snake river, and was decided in favor
of the defendants. Thomss Neill was
attorney for the plaintiffs and }. W.
Mat hews appeared for the defendants.
The case attracts much interest mas
much as it is believed to be the first
time such question has been decid-
ed by court Of this state aud 1t will
have bearing on the matter of divid-
ing the waters of streams, springs,
etc., for irigating purposes In this
state.
The decision Of Judge Chadwick
covers nine closely typewriter pages
and many DECISIONS of supreme and
other courts are given In the findings
of the court, which holds that ian lin-
dividual or corporation cannot claim
move water for irrigating purposes
than he actually uses to irrigate the
land actually in cultivation ana under
irrigation. The plaintiffs claim was
that they had right, by prior appro-
priation, to all of the waters in the
creek or canyon. The defendants
claimed that the plaintiffs had only a
right to use that portion OF the water
which was actually used In irrigating
the lands irrigated, and the court
held with the defendants.
The system under question Is one of
the first irrigating systems in Whit
man county, having been started in
1861 by one OF the pioneer settlers OF
the territory, and has been carried on
indiffeI entity since that time. The
land he's changed hands several times
and finally rested in the hands of the
plaintiffs, who asked an injunction to
restrain the defendants, whose land
lies further up the canyon, fromIusing
any of the waters OF the canyon for
irrigating purposes, claiming all OF
the waters had been prev iously appl o.
priated.
The evidnece showed that at the in.
take of the irrigating system of the
plaintiffs the carrying capacity Of the
system is 58 gallons per minute, but
that there is a great waste of the
water Between the point of diversion
and the point where the water is
turned upon the land 4, irrigating
purposes the flow is but Is gallons per
minute, and that is the amount of
water actually used by the plaintiffs
In their irrigating system. This water
irrigate5 about 10 or II acres OF land, +,
which the evidence shows is all the
land under cultivation by the plain
tiffs and the court holds that the
plaintiffs are entitled onJy to the
amount Of water actually used and ot
to all of the water In the canyon, nor
to ali that enters their irrigating sys-
TEN at the poin9 OF diversion. In con-
cIusiun the court finds:
"ln a court of equity he must do
equity, and especially is this enjoined
in case where The law will not toler-
ate waste or extiavagance, but will
measure the rights OF the parties by
the strict necessities of the case.
Plaintiff has the first right to irrigate
10 to II acres from the waters flowing
in said canyon, and inssmuch as he
has been able to do this, notwith.
standing defendants diversion and
the utterly inexcusable condition Of
bis water system, it follows that the
prayer OF plaintiffs complaint must
be denied"