Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1920-07-23
FARMERS WIN
WATER : SUIT
u s DISTRICT COURT HANDS DOWN DECISION SUSTAINING IN
FULL THE CONTENTION Of THE WATER USERS
FULL TEXT OF DECISION
DIETRICH DISTRICT JUDGE:

DIETRICH DISTRICT JUDGE
The questions Of Law involved are
in the main such as have had recent
consideration in other cases brought in
this jurisdiction. and hence extended
discussion could serve no useful pur-
pose.
To the contention that the plain
tiffs are concluded by the patent pro-
ceedings in the General Land office. it
is sufficient to respond that they We're
not parties to the proceedings. and are
not bound thereby. They hold con-
tracts imposing upon them heavy obli-
cations and in turn conferring upon
them valuable rights II would be
shocking to hold that these rights
could be taken away or substantially
impaired by a finding of fact or con-
clusion Of law 1--WE are not advised
which, made by an administrative
officer in an ex parte proceeding iu
which they did not have an opportunity
to be heard.
As TO the lands and water rights
purchased by the defendants at fore
closure sale. there is a measure Of
merit TO the suggestion that such water
rights are appurtenant to the land, and
that the footing Of the defendants is
the same as that Of any other owner.
but even so the consideration presents
no serious difficulty. If defendant sold
water rights in excess of its available
water supply il did wrong, and if to
right such wrong we reduce the Hro-
ject by extinguishing rights Of tie
wrong doer. however it may have ae-
quired them. there is no one - con-
plain. No private party has any ad-
verse interest. public policy wiz he
suhserved. for both the federal and
state statues contemplate an ample
rather than an insufficient supply Of
water for ell lands within the orojsct,
and defendant is not injured, for BY the
action the project viii simply
= reduced to the size at wh.c1 81
should have been held. under The law.
IN other words. after the reduction. the
defendant viii have as many contracts
in the aggreate as it originally had the
right TO sell. and hence the plaintiffs
prayer is for a restoration of the pro /
iect to a legal status. by taking from T
defendant water rights which though .
legally acquired, arethe equivalent az .
other rights which it Illegally soia .
md the proceeds Of which it au- 4
7ronriatea and retains This al OF
course. upon the assumption that de-
-endant wrongfully sold in excess OF
IS araiiahle water supply: and we PASS
% that inquiry
The FEDERAL Law lCaray ac1 e--
'rcssly requires On ample supply ~
rater, anl clearly contempt stes tHat
niy ample water rights shall be a7-3.
-nder the Statues OF the state I5afo
complies Statues, Sections 1855 an-
sss) It was unlawful fer the defend
nd TO sell in excess of the capacity q
IS worrs or more water than was
yaiiable TO it.
Rayi " Twin Falls salmon River
and and Water Co.
so Idaho. 81
And by It's contract with the state
efendant expressly covens snted shat it
-ould not exceed these limitations
/ its contracts with the plaintiffs and q
her settlers it agreed that for the G
named the settler was to F
-eceive one -eishdeth Of q cubic foot
water per acre per second ef time"
II the land described, and under the
ling in the Twin Fails salmon River II
md and water co. ". Cal3wel, ez2 s
sd i77 where a similar contract was "
sder consideration, st IS Thought THAI @