The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1916-06-01
VALLEY MAY
! FACE Big SUIT
POWER, FRUIT NTERESTSNyoLVEp
Supreme Court Remands Case to ,WatsE
Board = Interested Concerns
May Now Become Psrties

According to Geo. r. Wilbur, attor-
|neyfand secretary Of the irrigation dis
trict. the decision last Tuesday OF the
supreme court in reversing and remand
ing for hearing before ths Stals
Water Board the casa Of the Oregon
Lumber Company W.. the East Fork
Irrigation District, marks the initial
step ia the water right litigation that
will overshadow any similar case ever
heard in Oregon.
"As | interpret the decision Of the
supreme court" says Mr.. Wilbur, "the
case, when It is again opened before
the State Water Board, will call not
merely for an adjudication Of rights %
existing between the Oregon Lumber
Company and the East Fork Irrigation
District. but for the rights, 40 we'll. Of
all interested parties and concerns in
the Hood river watershed.
Hood River county q two chief In
terests, orcharding and electric power,
both dependent on the. stream that bi-
sects the valley, will be brought face
to face In battle that in legal circles
will eclipse such former record cases 40
that of the Willow Creek controversy,
the. North Powder River case and
Hough VI. Porter. the latter involving
big district in Klamath county"
According TO Mr.. Wilbur's predictions.'
the following seven irrigation systems.
covering in the aggregate the 'eAtire
area Of the fruit district. will be
aligned against the Pacific Power q
Light Go. and the Oregon Lumber Co..
.he latter two concerns representing
water power. interests: the Glacier r.
|rigating Co.. the East Fork Irrigation
District. the Mount Hood Water Co..
the Middle Fork lrrigating Co.., the
Dee Power \ Iirigating- Co., tbs, heod
River Irrigation District and thssFarmr
er's irrigating Co.
The case In qussti0n Was taken 10
the supreme court from . dscision Of
Circuit Judge Bradshaw Of The Dalles,
last year. Litigation arose when the
district made preparations to make use
of the greater portion Of 1000 inchessof
water on the East Fork Of Hood rivers.
TO which 1t alleged q rightly prior
filings. Tbs lumbar company main
tanned in it's complaint. In seeking to
enjoin the district from the use OF the
water. that such O. use would hamper
it In the operation OF itst large electri-
cally driven sawmill at Dee. The
plaintiff company alleged that rights
of the irrigation district had lapsed
because OF its failure to make continu-
Gus development of its system FOR the
use Of the water.
Since litigation began. the. lumbar
company has installed 1t its Dee mill
at an outlay OF approximately 10000,
a steam turbine capable OF furnishing
power for the lumber plant.
The East Fork District. since the
case was opened, has spent in bringing
its distribution system practically to
completion, approximately 100000.
The system covers IL. 600 acres OF orch.
ard land on the east side OF Hood River
valley.
"Some of the former cases may have
involved more territory than will be
drawn into the case that will probably
arise. said Mr.. Wilbur, ''but none OF
them has approached in the amount OF
property valuation involved the sum
that will be concerned In the suit that,
as it seems to me, is pending. In fact
almost the entire assessed valuation Of
the Hood River valley, approaching
$40, 00O0, 90. will be drawn In on one or
the other of the two sides OF the case.
Ernest c. Smith. attorney for the Or
egon Lumber Co., c0ncurs in the main
with the Interpretation placed on the
decision Of the supreme court by Mr..
Wilbur.
Testimony in the case. 1t Il comes on
for hearing az predicted, will be taken
by the State Water Board. The case
will then come on again before the cir.
cult court for hearing, and it 10 possi-