Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1914-03-07

Valley Land Co.
Dear Sir:
Our attention has been called to
your comments and your analysis of
the agreement entered into by the
parties litigant in the case of Pacific
Livestock Co. VS.. T. B. Hickey and
other defendants pending in the Uni
ted States District Court at Carson
City as published in The Yerington
Times on February Fl, 1914.
We desire at this time to call your
attention to the errors in your COM
ments and in your analysis. 1t appears
from what you have said that you
have never read the pleadings in the
case, and that you have never read
the evidence submitted in the case,
and that you do not understand the
law governing water rights in the
States of Nevada and California other
wise many of the statements you have
made would not have appeared in
print.
/. In your first criticism you sug
gest that the parties signing the agree
ment had bound themselves to accept
testimony in regard to the rights of
the Antelope Valley Land & Cattle
~
alton had given it an extra judicial
right that exempts them from adjust
ment of the water rights that would
be equitable to the people OF Nevada.
You will observe that in subdivision Z
of paragraph A complainant and de-
PENDANTS agreed that the lands irri-
gated and dates of irrigation, both in
California and Nevada, to be in ac-
I'll. facf Ire 6xy
taken and the law of appropriation.
We assume that you were not aware
that the testimony has been taken on
nesses produced by Hickey were all
subjected to cross-examlnauon by all
of the litigants who desired to cross
examine them. Hence, 1t is appar-
ent to anyone that the parties have
stipulated to do exactly what the
courts will do when finally submitted.
Neither party could have had any
different decision from the court than
as set forth in the agreement, because
the court will settle the amount OF
lands to be irrigated and the dates OF
the appropriations upon the evidence
submitted in the case and the law
governing the use of water as 1t exists
in the two States. Hence, no extra
judicial right is given to I. b. Hickey
or his successors by this part of the
agreement.
2. Your statement in the second
subdivision of you paragraph is even
worse than the foregoing. The agre-
ment provides that the Antelope Val
lev Land & Cattle Co. should have
eigth-tenths of an inch per acre to
irrigate its lands and all of the other
defendants six-tenths OF an inch per
acre, and this is true of all OF the
ranchers belonging to the Walker
River Irrigators' Association except
those who live on sandy, gravelly or
high bench land who are to receive
eigth-tenths of an inch per acre to If
rigate their lands, as you will IND by
examining the agreement on HE IN the
Recorders Office of Lyon county en-
tered into by the members OF the
Walker River Association and Miller
& Lux or its successor, the Pacihc
Livestock Co. In other words, 1t was
commended, on behalf of our people,
during the thirteen years the litigation
has been pending, that six-tenths OF an
inch of water was enough to irrigate
the lands on the meadows, but that
those on higher lands farther back,
where the lands were gravelly and
more porous, would require eight
tenths of an inch per acre to properly
irrigate their lands. So that when II
was shown in the evidence and by the
evidence introduced that the land OF
the Antelope Valley Land & Cattle
CO., being farther up the stream and
being more gravelly, in order to irrl-
gate those lands. properly it would re-
auire eight-tenths of an inch per acre
to irrigate said lands. In order to be
fair towards that company and to-
wards our clients who are living or
bench lands or who had lands that
were gravelly they were all allowed
eight tenths of an inch per acre. Sc
that considering what our clients OBJ
tanned in the first settlement and what
was conceded to the Antelope Valley
Land & Cattle Company in the last
settlement the terms accorded our eli
ents were the same that were ac.
corded to the Antelope Valley Land
& Cattle Co. and the same was set
tied for that reason on that basis
And further, the evidence introduced
shows that T. B. Hickey had taken
from the stream that much water to
irrigate his lands during many years
past.
8 There is no conflict between
paragraph 3 and paragraph g. Para
graph 3 provides that this agreement
Shall not effect applications to appro-
pirate additional water now pending
before the State Engineer. Paragraph
9 is an agreement to eliminate the
pending applications that are tying III
the water with no intention of com
pleting or perfecting the right. lr
other words. to eliminate the specla'
tors and con6ne the applications foi
water to those who desire to appro
pirate water within reasonable time
and apply the same to useful, bene-
fetal purpose with no intention what
ever of specializing upon the applica-
tons made.
4. In your paragraph 4 you state
that the Pacific Livestock Co. has nc
water right in the East Walker for the