The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1921-01-20
RIPARIAN RIGHTS
ARE INVOLVED
NEW ISSUE RAISED IN WATER CASE
Victory by Power Concern Would NeceS.
state Condemnation Proceedings
Precedent to be Set

The clearest point Of contest in the
/ adjudication of water rights on the
4 Hood river watershed, now before the
circuit court here. was presented last
/ Thursday to Judge Fred w. Wilson, of
/ The Dalles, engaged in a special ses-
| sion for consideration of exceptions
| filed by numerous claimants to findings
of the State Water Board. The issue
raised, involving the rights incident to
| riparian ownership, it is now consid-
cred by attorneys. will form u climax
for the big lawsuit, to which practi-
cally all orchardists, through their ir-
rigation concerns, and users of water
| for power purposes, are parties.
The State Water Board, to which the
case was referred by the Supreme
court several years ago, after ex-
haustive observations and the taking
of testimony, the transcript of W ich
is the most voluminous of any case
ever before a local court, has returned
to the circuit court findings that rec
ommend that the Pacific Power &
Light Co., be disbarred from a claim
of $50 second feet of water, the claim
based on rights of riparian ownership.
The Water Board in effect and by spe-
cific wording declares the doctrine of
riparian ownership to have been abro.
gated by the state Of Oregon. The
findings of the water board have placed
the power concern on par with any
appropriation of water, making use of
the stream without giving notice of
filing.
II. S. Gray, Of Portland, attorney
for the power company, however, in
his presentation of a brief and argu.
ment before Judge Wilson, declared
that the water board findings are in
teresting but not convincing. He cited
that the land owned by the power COM
panies were ceded to the state by the
federal government before the Desert
Land Act which established the law of
appropriation on public lands, and that
therefore this act does not apply to the
local riparian lands. MIR. Gray de-
clared that his company had based its
rights to use of the water on the ripar-
ian doctrine and that in 1918 construc-
tion work was begun on development
of one of its Hood River plants. He
cited that approximately 5000, 900 was
expended in this development. stopped
when the war came on and since held
in abeyance because of the litigation
that has arisen. Mr.. Gray declared
htat no notice of the power company's
intention of development were needed
as their rights are part and parcel of
the land owned.
In case Mr.. Gray's contentious are
sustained by court decision. the irriga-
tion concerns will find it necessary to
bring suit for condemnation, in order
to maintain their rights 10 use of the
waters of Hood River claimed. No
water right litigation of the state,
it is said. has ever directly involved
the rights incident to riparian owner
ship, and no clearly defined Supreme
court decision is available as guide
now. Courts in the present case. it is
said. will face the question squarely as
to rights of riparian owners of state
land. and the decision will set prece-
dent in such litigation.
Geo. r. Wilbur, secretary of the
East Fork Irrigation District, who ap-
peared for orchardist concerns, cited
numerous court decisions to show that
the Oregon Supreme court by inference
had shown that it was considered that
the law of appropriation had super
seded the doctrine of riparian owner
snip III EuCf CdSCo db budt lllNOiNtu
here. ]. II. Hazlett also appeared for
irrigation concerns.
The contingency of condemnation
proceedings against the Pacific Power
q Light Co. to maintain their use to
water for irvigating their orchards
has aroused keen interest in the case
on Kthe part of growers. In his state
ments TO the court, Mr.. Gray declared
that the power concern had invest
ments. in land and Improvements, ag-
approximately S500.000
The water rights litigation was init
lated late in 1918. when the Oregon
Lumber Co. filed suit in circuit court
here to restrain the East Fork lrriga-
tion District from increasing its use of
waters of the East Fork of Hood river
to the claim of its original filing.
When the case reached the Supreme
court, it was remanded for further tes-
timony, and because mass of similar
litigation seemed imminent, the Su-
preme court instructed that the State
Water Board assume jurisdiction over
all claims for rights in the entire
and take testimony that
would enable a decision. when the
case again reached the court that
would definitely adjudicate all claims.
The case, it is expected, will reach !
the Supreme court again some time this
year.
Judge Wilson on Thursday adjourned |
the special session until Yesterday
when The Mt. Hood Water Co, j. /. |
Miller and other Oak Grove orchardists
with exceptions to the water |
nAawIfu GnAsparo rkn r.