Imperial Valley press., 1908-05-09

cree only prohibits such flow of waste water into the lake as will substantially increase or prevent the decrease of its size: In other words, the decree implied Iy allows such flow into the lake as will not substantially affect 1t in neith- CT Of the ways just stated. Now, the prohibition of the decree as to com plainanCs land forbids any flow of waste water whatever upon said land. These two prohibitions, if they both ap- ply to compliments lands. are wholly inconsistent with each other, because one torbids any flow whatever, and the other permits such flow as will not substantially enlarge or prevent the di- minution of the lake.
 Lawful Uses.
 | am satisfied, that the courts conclu- stons herein, filed December 3tst. 1907, and pursuant to which compliments so- ucitors were requested to formulate @ decree, as well as the decree itself par ticularly when read in the light of the circumstances above referred to- show that no interference with the use by said settlers of water for lawful pur- poses was ever contemplated by the court It is true, that, in it's conclu- sions. the court said, among other things
 'Third-If, when the suit was brought there were grounds for injunction, such grounds have not been removed by the destruction of compliments works and the closing of defendants intakes. Com plainant is entitled to have it's freehold protected, without regard to the amount of damage threatened, otherwise the overflow sought to be abated might, by prescription. ripen into a servitude upon the land. Furthermore, the present safe- guards against overflow may be but temporary, while the compainants rem edial rights, if it has any, include per manent relief"
 This finding, however, must be read in connection with subsequent paragraph of said conclusions, as follows
 "Fourth-Conceding, that it is as much within the discretion of the court to refuse a perpetual as temporary in- junction. the evidence does not show any such resulting damage to the settlers in the Imperial country from the injunc- ton as would justify it's refusal, if com plainant is otherwise entitled to it. On the contrary the evidence shows that the settlers are as deeply interested in preve excessive diversions of water from the Colorado River as the com plainant, since such aXeesslve diversions would, or might result in the ultimate destruction of their holdings. Al that these settlers require is h sG11clent quantity of water to rriga.e their lands. Greater diversions than sLcn irTigaticR requires could result in ID good, and might do them incacullble harm "
 Settlers Protected.
 The words irrigation an1 'ir iaate" are used illustratively, not in {. r.stric- tive sense, as shown by the decree. where the corresponding words are as follows, For domestic ar1 irrigation uses and purposes and such other law fuI purposes as the same nay he applied to-" Thl paragraph above quoted from the courts conclusions, c.oarly i:npIieE, that, fnjunctlve relief being it's mach matter of discretion on final as on Lro- visional hearing, would be grAnt Il only so far as practicable without Hdim CT prejudice to said seS,'ccs The oblect unequfyocaly stated III -aId paraa1 aph was to prevent "eXcessive dir.i slons If water" and it is a significant ci!c nm stance shown upon tue face If tl;4 rac1- graph. that the diversions which would menace the settlers as well as injure complainant certainly not those diversions which the nrt ess' tits Of the settlers required. Sail par3gl lpE in the courts conclusions while i; ean not change the deere. IS l recognized aid to it's interpretation (Naitonal- F., etc., Works vs. Oconto, etc Co. lS3 ti. S. 216).
 Pursuant to the views of the court as expressed in said conclusions, the de- cree grants only limited or qualified re- lief by injunction, in part as fotiows.
 Second: That defendant be perpetu ally enjoined and restrained from divert ing from the Colorado River any of the waters thereof in excess of the substan- tial needs of the people dependent upon the canal described in compliments bill of complaint for water supply for do- nestle and irrigation uses and purposes, and such other lawful purposes as the same may be applied to-" etc.
 Reasonable Waste.
 Both the conclusions and the decree show, as already stated that the injunc- tive relief was not to interfere with a requisite supply of water to the settlers of Imperial Valley.
 bad baar tba Y1urnosa Of tha court