The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1909-05-22

SUPREME COURT
RENDERS DECISION
In the irrigation litigation involv-
ing rights and properties to appro-
priations from the Boise river for
$4,000 acres, situated in Boise val
ley and in which action nearly every
member of the Ada county bar, to-
gether with many members of the
adjoining county bar associations,
have been interested at one time or
other, an opinion was handed down
Saturday evening by the Supreme
court, affirming the judgment rem
dered by Judge George H. Stewart in
the Canyon county district court in
1906, decreeing the respective rights
and priorities but reversing the judg-
ment Of the district court as to the
duty on water in regard to which is
sue new trial is ordered.
The case involves $4,000 acres of
land, practically all water rights of
the Boise valley, including those of
water companies operating in Boise,
was first instituted in 1902 by the
Farmers Cooperative Ditch company
against the Riverside Irrigation dis
trict, and New York Canal company,
the latter four defendant districts
and company appealing to the Su-
preme court from an order of the
district court overruling a motion for
new trial.
The important question of rights and
priorities of appropriations of water
from the Boise river is established by
the opinion of the supreme court
while the burning question of the
duty on such water is referred back
to the district court for new trial.
The water rights and priorities were
decreed by the court and affirmed by
the supreme court after one of the
most vigorously contested legal bat
ties on the part of the strong array
of counsel, that has yet been present.
ed in an irrigation litigation.
In discussing the questions in
volved, the court says: at was moi
an action between water users anC
consumers, but rather an action be.
tween the appropriations of water
from the natural stream to determine
the quantity of water TO which eacf
appropriation is entitled and the DATE
from which his appropriation shoult
rum" The court then remarks tina
the decree is not an absolute decree o.
certain amount of water to eacl
acre of land. In commenting upoI
the division by the court of the land
into bench lands" and the alloting o.
water TO each the court says:
GUEss WORK UNSATISFACTORY.
The evidence introduced in this cas-
for the purpose Of establishing thu
duty Of water under these severa
canals and appropriations was prac
tically all purely guess work and o
the most unsatisfactory character
One after another of these witnesse
testified that he had been usinl
"about" u certain volume or quantit,
of water on his land, and he though
it was necessary to have "about" 8
much for the irrigation of his LAND
In nearly every instance when tn
witness was asked if he had eve
measured the water and made tests a
to the actual quantity of water use
on given tract of land, he said tina
he had not. A fair example of the ev
idence given in this case is that of
witness who testified that he ha,
lived in Boise for forty years and tina
he had been acquainted with the irri
cation bitches that were built in tn
early COS. He said: 81 don't mo1
anything about inches of water
l have made no investigation to de
termine how many inches of water
would take to irrigate an acre of lan'
either in vegetables or grass land.
The witness followed this testimon
by saying he would judge it woul
take about an inch to the acre. Til
was true with practically all the wi
nesses in the. case. The trouble wit
the whole line of evidence given Q