Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1914-08-14
SETTLERS MUST
PAY INTEREST ON
PRICE OF WATER
Decision Given by Judge
Walters in Case Involving
Delivery of Water on
Carey Act Project,

The partial delivery of water to land
within an irrigation project does not
forfeit the right Of the irrigation COM
pany delivering the water to collect
interest fer chat year. but where no
water at an was delivered no interest
would accrue and it therefore would
not have TO be paid Judge Walters
OF the Fourth judicial court so holds
i'm the Ransom case. originating out
of the Twin Falls north side project
and i'm which he has just handed down
an opinion. The case is looked Upon
10y settlers ON the project and over
irrigated southern Idaho as ono of the
most important OF it's Kind that has
ever been Carried before the district
court
Judge Walters says I'm part in his
opinion setting forth the facts in the
Ransom case and his conclusions:
What Facts Are.
"The facts surrounding the delivery
Of water to Mr.. Ransom for the year
1899 are. that while water was placed
in the canal Of the North side system
on March Il it did not reach Mr. RAN
SONS land until about the middle OF
May, and then it was a month or about
the middle of June before Mr. Ransom
planted any OF his land to crops, he
at that time planting about 10 acres
to oats and millet, and that he had
sausta, tory supply Of water TO irrigate
his crops then and until about the 9Th
of September when the water was off
until the G3d OF the same month The
situation thus appears to be that Mr.
Ransom had water for his crops,
whether he had a sufficient amount Of
water or an insufficient amount of
water is question that should be de-
termined in an action for damages
against the company rather than an
action of this nature which is to en-
tirely deny the defendant company
amy benefit Tor the delivery OF water
which * had delivered to him by start
ing the payment Of interest.
Il win not attempt TO state further
in detail the facts as they relate to
the Years 1919 and 1911. but the record
discloses that the delivery Of water
was not a continuous flow and that
the crops OF Mr.. Ransom suffered. es-
pecially during the year 1910.
Has Right Of Damage
Council for the defendant land
and water company has argued that
interest should commence to run after
the notice was given In accordance
with the contract. and independent
and Irrespective of any delivery Of
water To this view | most certainly
cannot assent | am of the opinion
that II there had been no delivery OF
water at all 20 Mr., Ransom during the
year 1909 that he would most GER
talnly not be called upon 70 pay inter-
est for tnst year There was, how
ever a delivery of water and in a
measure satisfactory for his needs and
hence he received some benefit tor
which he must respond to the company
by payment of his interest In accord
ance with the contract. II delivery
was insufficient the company must
then respond in damages to him.
1T is argued by counsel for the
plaintin that the settler should not be
required to bring an action for dam
ages against the company IL would
require many suits to do so. But It
must certainly be said that even under
this form Of action, which is to declare
invalid the lien claimed by the COM
pany for payment Of interest, that
each settler must bring his individual
action because the facts which sur
round his individual case would per-
haps be different. The right OF the
settler TO bring an action for damages
against the company has in the past
proven most effective, as it has been
my observation that the settler has
been most effective before the courts
and has obtained quite satisfactory
judgments when he saw NJ to bring
an action for damages. and believe
this 10 be the settlers remedy for an
insufficient supply OF water. Those
who received no water at all during
the year 1903 where the company were
unable. or did not deliver the same to
them. because OF its inability TO do so.
If the settler demanded II, cannot be
raouirad y pay interest for the year