The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1921-09-01
DECISION IN
WATER CASE
lRRIGATIONISTS ARE VICTORIOUS
Judge Wilson Files Memorandum of De-
ciSiOn, Affirming Findings of
State Water Board

judication of the rights Of the entir,
watershed of the Hood river, in whlcl
Judge Wilson has just rendered a de
cision, probably sets record for irri
cation cases in Oregon The CHIEF
contests in the case lay between irri
cation concerns and the power inter.
ests of the valley and touched almost
directly the valleys entire assessed
valuation of $9.000,0 900. Judge Wilson.
in filing his memorandum of decree
with County Clerk Shoemaker stated
that the formal decree would follow at
once. Judge Wilson's decision awards
a sweeping victory for the orchardists
irrigation concerns, and it is expected
| that formal appeal to the Supreme
| Court Will at one be announced.
In prefacing his decision, Judge Will
son says:
The testimony before the court is
voluminous. The legal questions pre-
sented are complicated and intricate.
The law, ultimately to be declared,
as applied to the existing situations,
will determine legal principals of very
great Importance. 1t fairly can be
said that no water litigation has ever
been presented to the courts of Oregon
involving graver questions, or more
valuable interests than those now be-
ing considered. The effect of their
ultimate determination will be tar
reaching. Irrigation attorneys in all
parts of the Northwest have been
watching the case, which has been be-
fore the courts for the last eight
years.
The litigation first became an issue
eight years ago when the East Fork
lrriagtion District was sued by the Or
egon Lumber Co., the latter seeking.to
secure an Injunction to prevent the dis
trlct from making full use to claims of
water on the East Fork Of Hood river.
The defendant won its contentious in |
the circuit court in a decision of the |
late Judge W. l.. Bradshaw. On reach |
ing the supreme court, however, it |
was remanded to the lower tribunal, |
and the State Water Board was in
structed to make thorough investiga-
tion of all conflicting claims on the en-
tire watershed and report its findings
IN such manner as to obtain com
plete adjudication. For three years
engineers and observers were engaged
in the valley, surveying all irrigable
areas of land and observing the flow of
the streams. The findings of the
board were presented to the court last
year, following formal hearings by the
body, members of which took testi-
mony of witnesses in cases of conflict
ing claims.
But four main objections were raised
% the findings of the Water Board.
Ihe first of these objections raised
/ contest between the Oregon Lumber
company and the East Fork Irrigation
district. The other contests were
3etween the Pacific Power q Light
20. and the East Fork Irrigation Dis
rict, that between the Glacier lrrigat- !
ng Company and the lumber company,
nd involving as well the claim of the
over company. while the fourth con-
est involved the Mount Hood Water !
70. on one part. and adverse thereto 1
laims of the East Fork Irrigation i
district. Pacific Power q Light Co.. u
regOn Lumber Co. and Glacier Irri- ?
ating Co. Numerous minor excep- 0
ons were taken, but all of them were q
lore or less involved in the decision of !
he main issues.
The contest between the East Fork "
'rigation District and the Oregon s
umber Co., according to Judge Will !.
m, involved the most valuable prop "
'ty interests and presented the most
rious and contraverted legal ques- u
Ons. The irrigation predecessor filed Y
the East Fork of Hood river in 1895 y
r 1000 inches of water. The lumber
mpany claimed that the water con- az
rn elected to file for its claims under Sc
e Legislative Act of 1891. The lum- ~
r company maintained that the ditch o'
mpany was strictly bound by all pro- h'
sions of this law. but that it failed =
proceed with sufficient diligence, Se
der these provisions, to hold the ~
iter rights claimed. The claim is e.
d that the ditch company completed ~
ditch in 1901, and that in 1905 the ia
nber concern constructed dam fur III
er down the stream and thus gave a.
tice that it would use the waters of OF
2 stream for development of power. co
that time, the lumber company de- en-
red, the ditch concern had devel- ~
ed a, system that would carry only ~
10 inches of water. The East Fork kl
-igation District, however, claimed ue
It the original filing was made on eh
stream under the act of 1891, mere ca
because of convenience Of the for ca
j proceedings provided. 1t was Su ~
intained that the company never ex- De.
ed for the purpose of sale of water VI
proht but that the original claim
s were organized as agents for the Ju
d owners of the entire East Side On
trict. In disposing of the case the ~
1T says: se'
After proper consideration this '"'
1t believes that the contention of iiaI
Irrigation District is one that 10
uld be sustained. The history Of lhe
attempts to appropriate water Ger
m the East Fork Of Hood river Sn'
" that long before November, 1895. aei
rts were made by early settlers to tess
ain this water. These earlier ef-
8 were futile, due to the immensity toi
the undertaking and the lack Of US
lclent material resources in a pio- me
r community. Finally these eallier ina
.mpts eliminated in the formation coH
the East Fork lrrigating Co. which
Ie the filing involved in this case. vaI
'as apparent that the aim Of all the ma
lers was 10 obtain this water for NOT
siicial use to irrigate the well de-
area Of land known as the East
/. -
idge Wilson affirms the findings Of No,