Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1916-08-17

cranberry growers, tried by Judge
Park last winter, has just been de
cided
Briefly the facts in the case are
these: Several years ago cranberry
growers built dam across Hemlocb
Greek in the Town of Hansen and dug
canal about "a feet wide at bottom
and in places II feet deep from Hem
lock creek south across Hay creek
into the upper valley of Cranberry
| Greek, in the town of Seneca.
By means of this dam and canal
these cranberry growers turned much
water from both Hemlock creek and
Hay creek, out of those creeks, into
the cranberry marshes in the upper
valley of Cranberry creek.
When the cranberry growers were
| through with this water they turned
it loose and it ran upon the lands and
into the bitches of the drainage dis
trict, partially filing those bitches,
and damaging the district.
Owners of lands in the drainage dis
trict objected to this, and demanded
that the commissioners of the drain
age district prevent the cranberry
growers turning waters from Hemlock
creek and Hay creek into their dis
trict. Those waters could not reach
the drainage district except through
this canal.
On demand of the land owners, the
drainage district brought an action
against the cranberry growers to pre-
vent them turning this water through
the drainage district, and incidentally
also to prevent the cranberry growers
unreasonably handling and discharg-
ing waters in foods upon the drain
age district
The cranberry growers sought to
justify their acts of diverting Hem
lock and Hay creeks into the Gran
berry creek valley, by claiming that
this canal was built under a charter
from the state, for TRANSFORMATION
purposes. They also claimed that I'M
der the cranberry culture statute"
they had the right to turn water from
Hemlock and Hay creeks into their
marshes, and later turn those waters
loose, to flow through the drainage
district.
Judge Parks decision is: that no
canal for transportation purposes was
ever constructed by the defendants:
that the canal that the cranberry
growers constructed was for purely
private purposes; that, while the cram
berry grower have the right to store.
use and discharge the waters of the
cranberry creek watershed as thew
have heretofore done, they have no
right to divert the waters of Hemlock
creek or Hay creek into the valley
Of the Cranberry creek and turn them
loose to flow through the drainage
district.
The Judge further decides that the
statute under which the cranberry
growers claimed to have dug the canal
tapping Hemlock creek, is unconsti-
tutional, and says as to the cranberry
culture statute, that eff it was nee
essary to pass upon the constitution
atty Of these sections [ should unhesi-
tatinly say that they are unconsti-
tutional"
His decision is that the drainage
district is entitled to an Injunction
against the cranberry growers who di-
vert the Hemlock creek and other
waters, to prevent those growers
turning the diverted waters into the
drainage district; that as to the other
defendants the action should be dis
missed; that the district is also en-
titled to nominal damage and to re-
cover it's costs
Several questions of great import
ance to drainage districts, and to
cranberry growers as well, are de-
cided by this case.
1t is said that there will be an ap-
peal to the Supreme court.
B. M. Vaughan tried the case as
attorney for the drainage district.
Goggins, Brazeau & Goggins tried
1t as attorneys for the cranberry
growers.