Imperial Valley press., 1908-05-09
JUDGE WELLB0RNS
 INJUNCTION DECISION
Continued from first page)

ant ba restrained from turning out of ! its ctusis sny waste water at any point | whence Che same will naturally flow up- | on or over the lands of complainant, or | flow into Che lake now covering tbe |. salton Sink, and thereby substantially l, increase the amount of water therein, ] or maintain the amount of water there | in, or prevent the decrease thereof by ! natural causes. and that a writ of in- i junction issue in accordance herewith" !
 prohibttioos Analysed
 careful analysis of this part of the decree resolves it into three prohibit tions First. that mo water shall be diverted from the Colorado River in ex- cess of the substantial needs of the peo- ple referred to This is found in the first clause above quoted. second. that none of Che water so diverted shall be allowed Co flow upon or over the lands of complainant. This is declared orig inauy tn the second. and repeated in the third and fourth clauses above quoted which clauses except so much of the fourth clause as relates to flow into the lake, are properly grouped un- der the same head. Third, that none of the waste water so diverted shall flow into the lake now covering the Salton sink and thereby substantially increase or maintain the amount of water there in Nor prevent the decrease thereof by natural causes. This is found in the fourth of said clauses
 This decree was intended to meet not only present but future conditions. It's first prohibition applies to both. That is to say, the defendant was enjoined from diverting elther then or in the future. from the Colorado River water 'in excess of the substantial needs of the people dependent upon the canal, and when the court thus permitted it did by necessary implication, the continued operation of defendants sys- tenn it must have contemplated the di- version of such an amount of water over that actually consumed as would be incident to the operation of the sys- tenn, prudently and reasonably conduct ed; otherwise the court authorized the defendant to do that which it was ap- parent could not otherwise be done without violating the decree. The seq- ond prohibition. which forbids the flow of water upon or over complainants land. looks to future conditions, or those which will nvist after the lake = ilds subsided. The third prohibition, which forbids a flow of waste water in- to Salton large enough to substantially increase or maintain the amount of wa ter therein or prevent the decrease thereof by natural causes. provides for present conditions. In other words, the decree provides that the defendant shall not turn out of it's canals waste waters into Salton Lake so as to main tain or prevent the subsistence of said lake and further. that, when said lake, from evaporation and other natural causes, has subsided, defendant shall not thereafter divert from said river water which will flow upon or over com plainant's land
 Lake is not Lands"
 The reference to Hands" in one clause and to "salton Lake" in another clause of the last paragraph of the de- cree above quoted confirms the view just. expressed that the prohibition against the overflow of complainant's land and the prohibition against the flow into Salton Lake are distinct from each other. and were designed to meet the different conditions above stated. The former of said prohibitions has no reference, nor indeed can it be applied to present conditions. for the obvious reason, that whether a stream debouch- ing into the lake. not large enough to visibly or appreciably affect the depth of the lake, reaches or could reach com plainant's land, 40 or 50 miles distant from the place of debouchment is matter incapable of proof, and it was for this reason. that the prohibition as to the flow into the lake was added
 This distinction is referred to by Judge Chapman in his argument. as fol- lows
 ''Now, we say. and have said, that when the court was dealing with the lands of the complainant. 1t was dealing with conditions which have become familiar to the court in the progress of this trial that the time would come when the lands would all be exposed, and when the court was making this decree final and perpetual, to continue to exist forever, it had in mind the state of the country which would exist there when the lands were exposed again, and we were not to waste water that was to flow upon those lands"
 Nor does this construction of the de- cree allow defendant, as suggested by eomplainants counsel, to continue to turn into Saton Lake as much water