Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-12-28
NO DELIVERY OF
WATER FOR STATE
LANDS REQUIRED
Supreme Court Hands Down
Decision in Favor of Twin
Falls Salmon River Land
& Water Company.

The Twin Falls Salmon River Land
& Water company does not, under its
contract, have to sell or deliver water
rights to a purchaser of state lands
within the project, for the delivery OF
water for irrigation purposes. This
important ruling Is laid down in a
lengthy decision made of record last
night in a case where in the state of
Idaho and Robert Rayl, who purchased
state lands. applied for writ of man
date against the Twin Falls Salmon
River Land & Water company to re-
auire that corporation and the Salmon
River Canal company to issue shares
OF water stock the water called for to
be used for the irrigation of state
lands held by Rayl. An alternative
writ was issued. This is quashed by
the supreme court and the peremptory
writ denied.
Chief Justice Isaac N. Sullivan
wrote the decision, lengthy one COW
ering SS pages. Justices Bulge and
Morgan concur. Justice Morgan set
ting forth his views in a separate de-
cision. 1t is shown in this case that
the Twin Falls Salmon River Land &
Water company entered into a con-
tract with the state to irrgate certain
Carey act lands in the Twin Falls
country, comprising 10000 acres. The
contract provided among other things
that shares of water rights should
be sold to persons purchasing any por-
ton of any state lands within the
project which were susceptible to ir-
rigation at price not to exceed $50
per share. providing the water rights
were purchased within one year after
the purchase of ne lands from the
state, and not O. eding $40 per share
at any time thereafter. After starting
construction of the project the com
pany discovered that the water avail
BILE for irrigation was about half the
estimated amount and il was agreed
between the state and the company to
cut the project to $4,000 acres. Some
$4,000 acres were sold to settlers of
which $4,000 was forfeited because the
purchasers failed to comply with the
law. leaving $4,000 acres. 1t was then
discovered there was not sufficient
water for the land that had already
been sold.
COMPANY REFUSES TO SELL.
The state sold 100 acres of state land
NANHlli tlit plbJtSI W Ilttgly WIZ Ut
manded OF the company a water right
for the land. The company refused to
sell him one. The supreme court holds
that under the facts it will not COM
pei the company to sell the water
right.
The construction company" says
the court in the syllabus of its de-
cision, was permitted, under the law
4g,r ~, - ~
for the purpose of transferring 1t to
the settlers within said project for
their use and benefit in connection
with the irrigation system, it being in
tended that the settlers should uti-
mately own the entire project, the ir-
rigation works and the water rights
The construction company was only a
trustee In the appropriation Of the
water.
by the terms of the state contract
the construction company agreed to
sell shares of water stock to the ex-
tent of the water rights to which 1t is
entitled but In no case shall
water rights or shares be dedicated to
any land before mentioned or sold be-
yond the carrying capacity of the
canal or In excess of the appropria-
ton thereof. The state in
dealing with a Carey act project is
not dealing in Its governmental capac-
ity, but in its proprietary capacity
In its capacity as private owner i'm
proving his own property.
Since the state and Rayl knew that
the water supply was insufficient at
the time said state land was sold and
purchased, an equitable estoppel arises
against them, and held, under the facts
and law. that the state is not entitled
to a priority Of right for any of said
water for the land sold to Rayl"