The Record-courier. [volume] (Gardnerville, Nev.) 1904-current, 1924-01-04
Springneyer Company Wins
Decision in Irrigation Case
Judge Ballards Findings Exclude Company.
Holdings From Carson Valley
Irrigation District

Judge Ballard has handed down q
written decision and opinion In the
suit instituted by the II. II. Spring
meyer Land and Development COM
pany against the Carson Valley Ir-
rigation District, granting the
exclusion of the Springmeyer lands
from the irrigation district.
The application of the Springmey-
er company for exclusion from the
Irrigation District. has been keenly
watched by the farmers of Carson
Valley and the opinion and decis-
ion of Judge Ballard is published In
full. knowing that the document will
be of great interest to the farmers of
Carson Valley:
In the matter of the Application of
II. II. Springmeyer Land Develop
mnet and Livestock company. cor
poration to exclude its lands from
Irrigation District No. / Carson Val
ley Unit, Truckee-Carson Propect
This is proceeding to review a
decision by the Board of Directors
of Irrigation District No. 1 Carson
Valley Unit, Truckee-Carson Project
unfayorable to the application of
Petitioner that certain described
land owned by 1t, about $50 acres.
be excluded from said Irrigation Dis
trict for the reason that said lands
can not be benefited by any sys-
TEN of irrigation in ccntempla-
tion or otherwise. While no propos-
ed plan or project has been filed,
both parties have proceeded upon
the theory that the lands or petit
tioner could not be benefited by
any plan that is under considera-
tion. and this embraced only the
storage of an additional supply of
water and it's incidental distribution.
IL is not suggested that the District
proposes to purchase or condemn the
water rights of petitioner or any
other appropriation in the District.
On the hearing the lands sought to
be withdrawn are referred to under
two classihcations based on the
priority dates of the water right ap-
purtenant thereto, the 1858 right
embracing some 327 acres, and the
1876 right of some 223 acres.
The Irrigation District comedies
that the 1858 right is a complete
water right, and that the lands to
which il is appurtenant cannot be
benefited by an additional supply
of water, but contends that this land
will be benefited by the supervision
and distribution of the water belong
ing to this right. This alleged bene-
fit is the only possible benefit result
'ng TO the 1858 right from the Irriga-
tion District activities.
1t is claimed by the District that
the 1876 right is not a complete
water right, and that the lands to
which it is appurtenant will be
benefited by an available additional
supply of water. and also by the
supervision and distribution afore-
said.
The Court is not concerned on this
hearing with the extent of the benefit,
and must decide adversely to petit
tioner If there is found any ac-
cruing benefit of a substance to
warrant the imposition OF even a
nominal tax for District purposes.
Petitioner presented direct testi-
mony from those acquainted with the
lands that at no time since the
separate parcels were put under
cultivation was there failure
or shortage of crops due to failure
of the water supply available in the
Carson river to meet the appropria-
tions of all the users of water hav-
ing a priority to 1876 and even later
1t is undisputed that there are, in
round numbers, 1870 acres of culti-
waited land having a priority to 1876.
and an additional area of $3.50 acres
having priorities between 1876 and
1912, or subsequent to petitioners
latest right. The District produced
not a single witness to prove that
at any time did he suffer any fail