The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1917-01-16
Water or Ditch Capacity
Question Before the Court


rapidly as possible from this project
which bears its name.
The official name of the stream,
which supplies the land in question, IS
Salmon Falls creek. It's flow of
water since the 1908 land sale has con-
sistently justified the name creek"
which designation was given it in an
early day by those evidently familiar
with it's water supply.
The promises of the advertising cir
cular did not agree with the evident
inability of the company in 1913 and
following to continually supply even
a fair portion of the water needed.
Those officially connected with the
company now stated for the first time
that the settlers had not purchased
definite water rights, but merely pro-
portionate shares in an irrigation sys-
tenn.
Carrying Capacity.
To substantiate this the settlers
were referred to the state contract
with the company, section eight of
which reads: Each of said shares
or water rights shall represent a car
rying capacity in said canal sufficient
to deliver LOO of one cubic foot of
water per acre per second of time
also represent a proportionate share
in said irrigation works-based upon
the NUMBER OIL shares IlHdlly SOlu
This and other ambiguous statements
in the contract were said to mean
that the settlers had not purchased
water, but carrying capacity in
canal and a prOpOrtionate share in the
works.
It is not yet plain to the settlers how
the Salmon tract can be thoroughly
irrigated and reclaimed" as provided
by the federal law, by mere carrying
capacity Whether or not this ca
pacity is to include water is one Of
the points to be decided by a case
now pending in the appellate court at
| San Francisco.
Some readers may feel that such an
issue is so utterly ridiculous that the
writer must be using irony or sarcasm
Such is not the case and the truth of
| the above statements will be shown by
exact quotations later
In spite of the fact that in 1919
the flow of water available. if applied
to all land in the segregation having
water contracts, would have lasted
less than twenty-one days instead of
140 days and each acre would have
receive five acre inches for the sea-
son instead of thirty-three and in 1914
this pro rata would have been S.45
acre inches, yet following these sea-
sons foreclosures were brought against
settlers for the full price of $40 per
acre because of nonpayment of two
years installments claimed to be due.
The reasons for the settlers inability
to make payments is perfectly OBJ
vious. Insufficiency of water to raise
normal crops and the inability of the
settlers to mortgage or sell part of
their holdings except at a sacrifice
made the raising of money impossible
Settlers Bring Suit.
Very opportunely the settlers assO-
citation brought suit against the com
pany asking that it be enjoined from
collecting installments or interest and
also asking that a receiver be appoint
ed and that reductions be made in the
area of the tract so that chose who
could be supplied with water could
pay and such portion of the money
paid out on installments be used to re
imburse those whose investments upon
the lands should be lost by failure
of the company to supply water IN
der the contract"
The federal court granted the in
junction, November 90 1915, and in sc
doing agreed with the common inter
2 probation of the contract, that 81;
acre feet of water were contracted for
This decree of the United States dis
trict court was appealed to San Fran
, cisco. One of the reasons for making
: the appeal was:
, 80. Because the court erred in hold
= ing, deciding and decreeing that plain
: tiffs and other settlers under said ir
: rigation system were entitled to NOR
than their pro rata or proportional
= share of water available for distribu
= ton from such irrigation system, ant
y that the defendant, Twin FallsSal
q mon River Land and Water company
had in any way agreed or warrante
. that each settler should receive , 3
- acre feet of water per acre or any 9th
er specific amount in excess of hi
prOpOrtionate share of all water avail
able for distribution from said irri
Il cation system"
= For the court to decree to the set
% tiers anything more than a proper
Tomato share in an irrigation syster
% of specified capacity was thus he'll
N to be erroneous.
n PrOpOrtiOnate Interest.
f. In the company's argument it wa
n contended that "the interest of tn
is settlers lin the water) under tn
t statute is proportionate," and that tn
a amount of water fixed in paragrap
of four of the contract relates to capacit
rather than water to be furnished (
" the settlers.
Is Paragraph four contains this state
e. ment
sr And it is agreed and understood
lg that the dam hereinbefore mentione
1" shall be constructed so as to provide
to reservoir for the impounding of 1Sl
y. 600 acre feet of water, which amour
in addition to the normal flow of IL
2E said stream during the irrigation pc
Of iod, has been determined to be su
~ ficient to furnish two and three-qua
II ters acre feet of water per acre II
er each acre of land to be irrigated"