Case Name: HEWITT v. STORY et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1894-11-01
Citations: 64 F. 510
Docket Number: No. 102
Parties: HEWITT v. STORY et al.
Judges: Before McKENNA, Circuit Judge, and KNOWLES and HAWLEY, District Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 64
Pages: 510–535

Head Matter:
HEWITT v. STORY et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 1, 1894.)
No. 102.
Irrigation — Abandonment of Water Rights — Irrigating Ditches.
R. and others, in 1809, located a ditch appropriating, for the purpose of irrigating their lands, the waste water of the A. river, remaining after the N. F. and S. F. ditches, previously located, had been supplied. Such ditch was called the “B. R. Ditch.” The water appropriated by it being insufficient for their lands, the owners of the B. R. ditch purchased shares in the S. F. ditch, and diverted the water so acquired through the B. R. ditch. Subsequently, by their consent, other owners of shares in the S. F. ditch diverted their water through the B. R. ditch, and in and after 1874 all the water belonging to the owners of the S. F. ditch was taken by them through the B. R. ditch, with the consent of the owners thereof, on condition of contributing to the expense of enlarging and repairing that ditch. Subsequently, the route of the B. R. ditch was twice changed, and the water belonging to the owners of the S. F. ditch was for more than five years conducted through such changed B. R. ditch, and all the water received through such ditch was allotted according to the interests of the owners of such S. F. ditch, who took complete possession, use, and control of the B. R. ditch, adversely to any right or claim under the original location. Complainant and his predecessors in title, the owners of the land originally supplied by the B. R. ditch and the locators of such ditch, knew of and acquiesced in such use, and shared in the water only according to their shares in the S. F. ditch, without objection to such use, and contributed to the alteration and repair of the B. R. ditch only in proportion to their shares in the S. F. ditch. In 1887 complainant brought suit to establish a right to a specific quantity of tin» water of the A. river, in virtue of the appropriation by tlie B. It. ditch. Held, that the use of the waste water in the B. It. ditch was abandoned through nonuser on the part of complainant and his predecessors in title. Knowles, District .'fudge, dissenting.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
This was a suit in equity by Isaac L. Hewitt; against; Warren Story and 66 others to establish a right to certain waters for irrigation purposes. A motion to dismiss was denied (39 Fed. 158), and the cause was next heard on objections by certain of ibe defendants to tlie amended bill of complaint. The objections were disallowed. 39 Fed. 719. Subsequently, on further hearing, the bill was dismissed (51 Fed. 101), and complainant now appeals.
This is a suit in equity. The bill of complaint alleges the wrongful and unlawful diversion of certain waters by tlie appellees, (¡7 in number, including certain corporations, companies, associations, and individuáis, using and claiming water by appropriation from tlie Santa Ana river, in San Bernardino county, Oal. It prays for a decree entitling appellant to a specific quantity of water, and for an injunction, etc. The bill was filed in January, 1887. Appellant claims to be the owner in possession, and entitled to the possession and use, of 333% inches, under a, 4-inch pressure, of the waters of the Santa Ana river, -which he alleges were appropriated by his predecessors in interest through and by means of a certain ditch known as the “Berry Roberts Waste-Water Ditch.” The Santa Ana river is an uimavigable stream of running water, flowing through sundry wild cañons and ravines in tlie San Bernardino mountains, and emerging therefrom into the San Bernardino valley through the mouth of a steep ravine near the eastern boundary of tlie valley; and the waters thereof have been and are held and owned, for many miles above and below the entrance to the Berry Roberts ditch, exclusively by right of appropriation, and used generally for the purpose of irrigation. Long prior to the location of tlie Berry Roberts ditch, two appropriations liad been made of tlie waters of the Santa Ana river, — one by means of the North Fork ditch, owned by the North Fork Water Company, a corporation, which taps the river near the point where it debouches from the mountains into the valley; the other by means of the South Fork ditch, owned by an association of individuals designated in the hill of complaint as the South Fork & Sunnyside Division of the Santa Ana River, which takes water from the river some distance lower down. The owners of these ditches have, at all times since acquiring their water rights, kept these ditches in repair. Prior to 1800 there were but few people using the water from the ditches, but, before the Berry Roberts ditch was located, the number had been largely increased. The ditches have since been enlarged, and many thousands of dollars have boon expended thereon. ■ The actual extent of the appropriation by the North Fork and South Fork ditches, prior to Hie location of the Berry Roberts ditch, is not clearly defined, and. under tlie views hereinafter ex-Xuvssed, the precise amount of water which each ditch is entitled to need not be determined. Subsequent to the location of tlie Berry Roberts ditch, two ai>propriafions of water from the Santa Ana river nearer its head have been made: One, the Brown and .ludson ditch, owned by the Redlands Water Company, a corporation, which was located in tlie spring of 1881, and conveys water to the town of Redlands for irrigation and domestic purposes. Every year since its construction, extensions and improvements, involving large expenditures of money, have been made. The other, tlie Bear Valley dam and reservoir, owned by the Bear Valley Land & Water Company, a corporation, was located in June, 1883. This corporation, in the spring of 1883, bought three or four thousand acres of land situated in the lower portion of Bear valley, and constructed a dam at tlie point, where the lower edge of the valley adjoins tlie head of Bear cañón, for the purpose of obtaining, aboye that dam, the water that would otherwise have run to waste in the winter and spring months. This dam is of granite masonry, 20 feet thick at its base, about 00 feet highland 300 feet long, forming a lake about 5 miles long and over one-half of a mile wide, of an average depth of about 13 feet. Bear creek is fed by small tributaries which come into it, at different points, all of the way from where it leaves Bear valley down to its junction with the Santa Ana river. The construction of the dam does not appear to have affected the flow of water down Bear creek during the irrigating season. The Berry Roberts ditch was located in 1869, by Berry Roberts, Henry Suverkrup, and George A. Craw, as a waste-water ditch appropriating “the waste water of the Santa Ana river” remaining therein after the North Fork and South Fork ditches should be fully supplied. The locators of the Berry Roberts ditch, at the time of its location, occupied, possessed, and claimed separate and distinct portions of land situated in section 16, township 1 S., range 3 W. of the San Ber-nardino meridian. Roberts claimed 160 acres, and Suverkrup and Craw, in the aggregate,. 240 acres. The ditch constructed by them, and through which they appropriated the waste water, tapped the river on the south side between the head of the North Fork and the South Fork ditches. At the time the Berry Roberts ditch was located, and for many years thereafter, there existed in San Bernardino county a board of water commissioners, created by an act of the legislature of the state of California, whose duties were to regulate the distribution of water in accordance with the rights of the parties in interest, and they were invested with authority to appoint water overseers, etc. In the records kept by this board appears the following entry: “By request of Henry Suverkrup, Berry Roberts, and G. A. Craw, W. T. Morris and E. Kerfoot, water commissioners for San Bernardino county, California, located a water ditch to be known as the ‘Berry Roberts Ditch.’ The water claimed by the aforesaid parties for this ditch is the waste water of the Santa Ana river, taken out in the southeast bank of said river about four miles northeast from section sixteen (16), township No. 1 south, range No. 3 west, San Bernardino meridian, running thence nearly a southwest direction'to the said sixteenth (16) section, and to be used for irrigating, and to be equally apportioned among said parties on the land of the said sixteenth (16) section owned by said parties; and also Berry Roberts was appointed overseer for the aforesaid ditch for the present year. Done on the 19th day of February, A. D. 1870. W. T. Morris. E. I-Cerfoot.” Roberts thereupon took charge of the Berry Roberts ditch, and with Suverkrup and Craw conducted the waste water running therein to their respective lands, in section 16, for irrigation and domestic purposes. The lands which they then had under cultivation amounted, in the ’ aggregate, to not exceeding 100 acres, about 50 acres thereof being in grain, and the balance in fruit trees and vegetables. They permitted one or more of their neighbors to participate in the use of the water on condition that they should contribute to the necessary repairs of the ditch. In 1870, Roberts conveyed his interest • in the 160 acres of land claimed by him, together with his interest in the Berry Roberts ditch and the waste water, to one Ball, who thereupon succeeded Roberts as water overseer. In 1872, Craw conveyed his interest in 160 acres of land claimed by him to Suverkrup, and also his interest in the Berry Roberts ditch and in the waste water. During the years 1870, 1871, and 1872, the then owners of the Berry Roberts ditch used the waste water running therein, at all times when they could get any water, for the irrigation- of the lands which they then had under cultivation; but the waste water running in said ditch was wholly insufficient to supply their needs:
There is more or less confusion in the testimony as to the name of the South Fork ditch. It is sometimes called “South Fork,” sometimes “Sunny-side Division of South Fork,” but more frequently, in relation to its connection with the Berry Roberts ditch, it is designated as the “Timber Ditch,” .by which name it will hereafter be. called. Upon ascertaining the fact that no reliance could be placed in the supply of waste water from the Berry Roberts ditch during the irrigating season, Ball purchased 40 shares in the Timber ditch and in the water appropriated therein, and Suverkrup purchased 30 shares in tlie Timber ditch and in the water flowing therein. The quantity of water thus acquired by them was diverted through the Berry Roberts ditch to their respective tracts of land in section 10. Subsequently, by the consent of Ball and Suverkrup, various other owners of slmres in the Timber ditch appropriation diverted and conducted the quantity of water to which they were respectively entitled, by virtue of their interests in the Timber ditch, through and by means of the Berry Roberts ditch. The Berry Roberts ditch continued in charge of the water overseers appointed by the board of water commissioners, in dune, 1874, Suverkrup convoyed his interest in the 240 acres of land then claimed and possessed by Mm, together with his interest in the Berry Roberts ditch and in the waste water, and also the 30 shares in the Timber ditch, to one Borron, the immediate predecessor of appellant. During the year 1874, while Ball and Borron were diverting and using the water belonging to them as share owners in tlie Timber ditch through the Berry Roberts ditch, some of tlie other owners of shares in the Timber ditch applied to them for permission to divert and conduct the water belonging to their shares in the Timber ditch through the Berry Roberts ditch. Permission was given upon the condition that the parties should contribute and aid in enlarging and repairing the Berry Roberts ditch, which condition they complied with. After the year 1874, no water was taken from ilie river through tlio Timber ditch; bul all of the waiter (heretofore diverted through and by means of the limber ditch was thereafter diverted through and by means of the Berry Roberts ditch, and the owners of shares in the Timber ditch appropriation (with but few, if any, exceptions) continued t.o use tlie water, to which they were entitled by virtue of that appropriation, through 1he Berry Roberts flitch. It is not shown that permission to make this' change was granted t;> any considerable number of the shareholders in the Timber ditch appropriation; but it does affirmatively appear that the shareholders in the Timber ditch took actual possession and control of the Berry Roberts ditch, and through it diverted and conducted the water that had theretofore been diverted and conducted by means -of the Timber diteli. As early as 1877, if not before, all of tlie water diverted through the Berry Roberts ditch was distributed by the water overseer in charge, and was used by the respective claimants of it, including Ball and Borron, in proportion to the number of shares held by them in the Timber ditch appropriation. The Berry Roberts ditch was enlarged and kept in repair by tlie parties so using it, and during the year 1877, upon application to the board of water commissioners, a change was made in its route, and in the place of its diversion of the water from the river, in order to avoid a sand wash which caused a loss of water. The board of water commissioners 1 lien directed that tlie ditch should thereafter be known as the “South Pork of Santa Ana.” In 1878 another change was made, by the construction of what is designated by some of The witnesses as the “Stone Ditch,” and referred to by others as the “South Pork Sunnyside Division Ditch.” After this change was made, Hie wafer running in the Santa Ana river during (lie irrigating season was all absorbed and taken in nearly equal quantities by the Xortli Pork and South .Pork ditches. Tile Sunnyside Division ol' the South Pork ran into the old Berry Roberts waste-water ditch about one mile from where (he water was taken out of the river. The water diverted and conveyed by means of (lie South Pork or Timber ditch, with its divisions and systems of conducting the water, continued to be allotted to tlie respective claimants therein in the proportion of the number of shares held by them. It was so allotted, diverted, and used for more than five years during Borron’s ownership, and during all (liar time Borron in person, or by his authorized agent, Ool. Tolies, acquiesced in and accepted such allotment of the waters flowing in the diteli. In October, 1881, Borron contracted to sell his land and water rights to appellant, and the salt' was perfected, and the deed therefor was executed and delivered in the spring of 1882; and tile water was continuously thereafter allotted, diverted, and used tlio same as before ibe sals'. It appears from the testimony that an inch of waier is sufficient to irrigate' from five to six acres of land, and is considered to be of the value of .$1,000 for the purposes of irrigation.
The circuit court, upon a review of the facts, found, as a conclusion of law, “that there was an abandonment by the Immediate grantor of the complainant, as well as by the complainant himself, of the water embraced by the appropriation upon which the suit is based,” and upon this ground, without any consideration of the other points involved in the case, dismissed the bill of complaint, and rendered Judgment In favor of appellees for their costs. Hewitt v. Story, 51 Fed. 101.
W. F. Herrin and H. L. Gear, for appellant.
R. E. Houghton, for appellees.
Before McKENNA, Circuit Judge, and KNOWLES and HAWLEY, District Judges.

Opinion:
HAWLEY, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The argument of this case extended over a very wide range, embodying within its scope nearly every principle that has ever been enunciated by the courts, touching in any manner upon the question of the rights of appropriation of water from the public streams or upon private lands, — the incipiency of such rights, the manner of their acquisition, how they may be kept up and maintained, and in what manner and under what circumstances such rights may be lost. We consider the law to be well settled that the right to water flowing in the public streams may be acquired by an actual appropriation of the water for a beneficial use; that, if it is used for irrigation, the appropriator is only entitled to the amount of water that is necessary to irrigate his land by making a reasonable use. of the water; that the object had in view at the time of the appropriation and diversion of the water is to be considered in connection with the extent and right of appropriation; that if the capacity of the flume, ditch, canal, or other aqueduct, by means of which the water is conducted, is greater than is necessary to irrigate the lands of the appropriator, he will be restricted to the quantity of water needed for the purposes of irrigation, for watering his stock, and for domestic use; that the same rule applies to an appropriation made for any other use or purpose; that no person can, by virtue of his appropriation, acquire a right to any more water than is necessary for the purpose of his appropriation; that, if the water is used for the purpose of irrigating lands owned by the appropriator, the right is not confined to the amount of water-used at the time the appropriation is made. He would be entitled, not only to his needs and necessities at that time, but to such other and further amount of water, within the capacity of his ditch, as would be required for the future improvement and extended cultivation of his lands, if the right is otherwise kept up; that the intention of the appropriator, his object and purpose in making the appropriation, his acts and conduct in regard thereto, the quantity and character of land owned .by him, his necessities, ability, and surroundings, must be considered by the courts, in connection with the extent of his actual appropriation and use, in determining and defining his rights; that the mere act of commencing the construction of a ditch with the avowed intention of appropriating a given quantity of water from a stream gives no right to the water unless this purpose and intention are carried out by_ the reasonable, diligent, and effectual prosecution of the work to the final completion of the ditch, and diversion of the water to some beneficial use; that 1he rights acquired by the appropriaior must be exercised with reference to the general condition of the country and the necessities of the community, and measured in its externt by the actual needs of the particular purpose for which the appropriation is made, and not for (he purpose of obtaining a monopoly of the water, so as to prevent its use for a beneficial purpose by other persons; that the diversion of the water ripens info a valid appropriation only where it is n! ilized by the appropriate!* for a beneficial use; that the surplus 07' waste water of a. stream may he appropriated, subject to the rights of prior appropriatosu and such an appropriaior is entitled to use all such waters; that, in controversies between prior and subsequent appro printers of water, the question generally is whether the use and enjoyment of the water for Iho purposes to which the water is applied by the prior ap)proj)riafor have been in any manner impaired by the acts of the subsequent appropriate!*. These general principies are of universal application throughout, the states and territories of the Pacific coach They have, in one form or another, been declared, upheld, and maintained by the courts by a uniform current of decisions in California.. ever since the decision in Eddy v. Simpison, 3 Cal. 249. We cite a few of the man v eases upon this subject : Kelly v. Water Co., 6 Cal. 106; Kimball v. Gearhart. 12 Cal. 28; Ortman v. Dixon. 13 Cal. 34; Weaver v. Lake Co., 15 Cal. 274; McKinney v. Smith, 21 Cal. 374; Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 476; Water Co. v. Powell, 34 Cal. 109; Nevada Co. v. Kidd, 37 Cal. 283; Mitchell v. Mining Co., 75 Cal. 482, 17 Pac. 246; Peregoy v. McKissick, 79 Cal. 572, 21 Pac. 967; Civ. Code Cal. § 1110 et seq. The same rules prevail in Nevada.: Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274; Ophir S. M. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534; Proctor v. Jennings, 6 Nev. 83; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 218; Simpson v. Williams, 18 Nev. 432, 4 Pac. 1213. In Colorado: Wheeler v. Irrigation Co., 10 Colo. 583, 17 Pac. 487; Platte Water Co. v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 21 Pac. 711; Coombs v. Ditch Co., 28 Pac. 966; Ft. Morgan L. & C. Co. v. South Platte Ditch Co., 30 Pac. 1033. In Idaho: Conant v. Jones, 32 Pac. 250. See, also, Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507; Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670; Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 276; Gould, Waters, § 228 et seq.; Kinne, Irrigation, § 150 et seq. In the light of these principles and authorities, it is evident that neither appellant nor his predecessors in interest ever acquired any right by ap>-p)top>ria(ion to the extent of water now claimed by him.
But the contention of apprllees is that appellant: is not entitled to any amount whatever, under or by virtue of any appropriation that was made of the waste water flowing in the Berry Roberts ditch upon wlxich this suit was brought; that such rights as were ever acquired by such appropriation were either abandoned or lost by non user, by the statute of limitations, which is specially pleaded, and by the prescriptive rights acquired by a pjoriion of the appel-lees, aud (hat appellant is estopp>ed, by the line of conduct and action of himself and his predecessor in interest, from asserting any right oi* claim to such waters Cor the purpose of irrigating his lands. Grouping these questions together for the brevity of discussion, it may be said that, if any of them are well founded in fact, the judgment of the circuit court in dismissing the bill should be sustained. The legal principles in regard thereto are well settled. The general principles pertaining' to an abandonment of water lights, which are applicable to this case, are clearly summed up in Black's Pom. Water Rights, § 96, where it is stated that the previous sections—
"Recognize the fact that there may he an abandonment of the exclusive right to divert and use water acquired by, or resulting from, a prior appropriation; that such an abandonment may be made either after the prior appropriation has.become perfect and complete, and the right under it vested, or while it is yet imperfect and incomplete, and the right under it remains inchoate; and, finally, that an abandonment may be express and immediate, by the intentional act of the appropriator, or may be implied from his neglect, failure to use due diligence in the construction of his works, nonuser of them after"completion, and the like. The general doctrine concerning the effect of such an abandonment, at whatever time or in whatever manner made, is well settled. ' The prior appropriator thereby loses all of his exclusive rights to take or use the water which he had acquired, or might have acquired, by his appropriation; and he cannot, after an abandonment, reassert his original right to the same, or the same amount of water, as against a second or other subsequent claimant, who has taken proper steps to effect an appropriation thereof."
In Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 509, tbe court said:
"The right of the first appropriator may be lost in whole, or in some limited portions, by the adverse possession of another; and when such person has had the continued, uninterrupted, and adverse enjoyment of the water course, or of some certain portion of it, during the period limited by the statute of limitations for entry upon lands, the law will presume a grant of the right so held and enjoyed by him."
In Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 34, tbe court said:
"A party acquires a right to a given quantity of water by appropriation and use, and he loses that right by nonuse or abandonment. Ax>propriation, use, and nonuse are the tests of his right."
In Smith v. Logan, 18 Nev. 154, 1 Pac. 678, tbe court said:
"The findings show that from the year 1861 until 1807, inclusive, Logan irrigated from ten to thirty-five acres of land. During the years 186S, 1800, and 1870 he made no use of the waters, and in 1871 and 1872 he irrigated but five acres. During these five years plaintiff and his predecessors in interest used the waters of the creek under their appropriations adversely to Logan. They therefore acquired the right to so much of the waters appropriated by Logan as he failed to use during the period limited by the statute of limitations."
Section 1007 of tbe Civil Code of California provides that:
"Occupancy for the period prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all."
Section 1411, under tbe title of "Water Rights," declares that:
"rrhe appropriation must be for some useful or beneficial purpose, and when the appropriator and his successor in interest cease to use it for such a purpose, the right ceases."
The acts and conduct of appellant and of bis predecessors in interest, relative/to tbe use of tbe Berry Roberts ditch by tbe owners of tbe South Fork Company as part of their system for -conveying tbe water which belonged to tbe South Fork ditch by right of prior appropriation, are inconsistent' with the claim made in the Mil ot complaint. In order to avoid the force and ('fleet of this evidence, appellant contends that the original right of appropriation, as acquired by the locators of the Berry Roberts ditch, has been preserved and maintained by the assertions of Borron and appellant at various times during their respective ownership of the land, and during the time they were exclusively using the '10 inches of water from the youth Fork or Timber ditch, "that they were entitled to the water embraced by the waste-water appropriation." Such declarations by words of mouth, unaccompanied by any act or deed in vindication and maintenance of them within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations, is wholly insufficient to keep alive the rights they had previously acquired by the appropriation and use of the waste water-in the Berry Roberts ditch for the purpose of irrigation during the irrigating season. In Cox v. Clough, 70 Cal. 347, 11 Pac. 732, the court said:
T1'the defendants used and held the water adversely for five years next before suit was brought, the inert- disputing; their right to such possession by (ho plaintiff would not prevent the bar of the statute. The seventh finding- might be literally true. — that is, defendants and their grantors might have 'claimed the right to the exclusive use of all the waters,' — and yet they may never have been for a moment, in the possession of such waters."
No heed was ever given — no attention ever paid- — to the asserted claim of ownership made by Borron or appellant. The asserted claim was never recognized nor in any manner respected by any of the ap-pellees, nor by any of the parties using lite Berrv Roberts ditch for the purpose of conveying the water of the MoutliVork ditch therein. The contention of appellant that the use of the Berry Roberts ditch was consented to by appellant and his grantor, and only amounted to a temporary license, which was revocable at their will and pleasure, is not sustained by the facts. The suit is without merit, and devoid of any equity whatever. Appellant's rights to water for the purpose of irrigation have not been impaired. Whatever rights he or his grantor ever had to the waste water during the irrigating season have been lost by- their conduct and by their nonuse of the water, and appellant is not in a position to complain of the use of the waters of the Santa Ana river by oilier parties.
To recapitulate: The locators of the Berry Roberts ditch claimed (he waste water of the river to irrigate their lands situate in section 1(5. After a few years they discovered that such waters were wholly insufficient for such purpose; that said ditch and the water rights acquired by its construction could not be relied upon to furnish water during the dry or irrigating season; that, to quote (lie language of one of the witnesses, the water was so scarce that the land was liable to "dry up and blow away." The locators then, for the purpose of obtaining the necessary quantity of water to irrigate their lauds which were fit for cultivation, procured, by agreement and purchase, certain interests in the waters flowing in the South Fork or Timber ditch, which, with the North Fork ditch, had a prior right to the waters of the Santa Ana river, as against the Berry Roberts ditch. After acquiring the waters of this ditch, they and their grantees stopped using any of the water they had formerly appropriated. They succeeded in making an agreement with some other owners of the South Fork to convey the waters from said ditch over' into the channel of the Berry Roberts ditch, and prior to 1877 all the owners consented to this change of the waters, and united in its use. The owners of the South .Fork ditch took absolute, complete, and exclusive possession, use, and control of the Berry Roberts waste-water ditch, — whether rightfully or wrongfully, by consent or otherwise, need not be here determined. They appointed overseers, or "water masters," as they are sometimes called, who issued time cards to the shareholders, and upon such cards allotted and distributed to the owners in the South Fork or Timber ditch all of the w'ater which was taken and conveyed through the Berry Roberts waste-water ditch, to the entire exclusion of any and all other waters and water rights. After a few years' use of the water in this way, it was discovered that a great saving of water could be made by changing the course of the ditch, and taking the water out at a point further up the river, so as to avoid sandy [daces in. the river bed. This change did not give the full relief anticipated, and another change was made. From the year 1874 up to the time of the commencement of this suit, in 1887, all of the water used upon the 240 acres of land now owned by appellant, for the purpose of irrigating the same, was water represented by the 30 shares in the Timber ditch owned by appellant and his predecessors in interest, and this amount of water is sufficient to irrigate said lands. The diversion and use of this water in the way and manner stated were with the knowledge, consent, and acquiescence of Borron, the immediate predecessor of appellant, and were claimed by the other owners of the South Fork ditch to be adverse to any right or claim under the original location and appropriation of the waste water in the Berry Roberts ditch. The testimony show's that the use of the waste water in the Berry Roberts ditch was abandoned, in so far as it had, prior to 1873, been used as a source of water supply during the irrigating season; that in 1874 the Berry'Roberts ditch was taken possession of and used by the South Fork 'Ditch Company; that ever since that time the South Fork Company has had the sole and exclusive possession, use, management, and control of it; that all the water which has run through it has been the wrater actually appropriated by the South Fork Company; that during the full time of Borron's occupancy of the land, from June, 1874, to the fall of 1881, he never questioned the right of the South Fork Company to the waters flowing in the Berry Roberts ditch, or to any part or portion thereof; that during all this time he only received w'ater to irrigate his land through the Berry Roberts ditch on his 30 shares from the South Fork Ditch Company. Substantially the same state of facts continued to exist after appellant purchased the land, in 1882. One witness, the son of appellant., testified that he protested, on behalf of appellant, against the use of the Berry Roberts waste-water ditch being taken by the South Fork Company, and that appellant occasionally used such water for irrigating his lands; but this use of the waters, it is admitted, was con fined to ilie nonirrigai ing1 season in the early spring1 or late fail of the year. Col. Tolies testified that the expense of constructing what was called the "South Pork" of the Santa Ana ditch in 1877 was paid upon the basis of ihe shares in the waters of the South Fork ditch; that the original Berry Roberts ditch was thereafter used to convey the waters of the claimants in the South Fork of the Santa Ana continuously, so far as he knew, until the injunction which was issued in this proceeding; that, the South Fork or Timber ditch water filled the Berry Roberts ditch to its full capacity; that repairs were subsequently made upon the Berry Roberts or South Fork ditch, pro rata, according to the ownership of the respective parties; that Mr. Borron and appellant paid their proportionate share; that the water was apportioned pro rata on the basis of ownership of the South Fork shares; that there was no distribution of waste water, to his knowledge, to either Borron or Ball, other than during the rainy season, at which time it was not the custom to coniine distribution to the water tickets, but each party was then allowed io continuously use the water; that during the irrigating1 season no waste water was used or distributed in the Berry Roberts ditch. All tin; testimony of the several water overseers or water masters and timekeepers and others was substantially to the same effect. The waste-water rights of the Berry Roberts ditch location, having been lost by nonuser upon the part of Borron prior to the time when appellant acquired Hie land, could not he reasserted so as to acquire thereafter any right therein, except by the continued and adverse use of such rights for the period of live years, or by a new and valid appropriation of the water. In Cannon v. Stockmon. 36 a
"A party who has boon in the continued, exclusivo, adverse possession for live years is entitled to Hie benefit of the statute of limita Hons, although the live years are not next preceding the commencement of the action."
As against the appellees who have acquired rights to the waters of Betm creek and the Sania Ana river subsequent to the location of the JBeriy Roberts ditch, Hie question here is, as staled in Hill v. Smith, supra:
"lias 1 lie plaintiff's use ami enjoyment of the water for ihe purpose for which lie claims its use been impaired by the acts of defendant?"
This suit, it must continuously be borne in mind, is exclusively founded upon the alleged right» of appellant of water for irrigating purposes during the irrigating season, and not for any deprivation of water during- the rainy season, or the waste waters then flowing in the Sania Ana river, or through any of the many ditches or canals that have been mentioned. If is therefore necessary for appellant, in order to sustain this action as against the subsequent, appropriators, to affirmatively' show that Ms right to the waste waters of the Bern' Roberts ditch for use during the irrigating1 season has been impaired by the wrongful and unlawful acts of the appellees to his injury. This he has not done. Ho injury- has been shown. The absorption of the right to flow water* into the Berry Roberts ditch by the South Fork Company, and the use of said ditcli for the conveyance of the water were really- beneficial, instead of detri mental, to appellant. Instead of tlie uncertain and insufficient quantity of water which then flowed in the Berry Roberts ditch, he has, under the agreements and changes in the condition, as before stated, obtained a valuable right amply sufficient to supply his wants, and to enable him to cultivate, irrigate, and improve his land. It cannot, in the light of all the facts and circumstances set forth in the voluminous record on file herein, be consistently claimed that his rights have in any manner been injured or impaired by the acts of appellees. In Sharp v. Hoffman, 79 Cal. 406, 21 Pac. 846, the court said:
"The gravamen of plaintiff's action being the deprivation of water for irrigation during the irrigating seasons in the years 1883, 1884, and 1885, whereby he suffered loss, it is incumbent on him to show by satisfactory evidence (Code Civ. JProc. § 1835) a right to the use of the waters of the creek during each of such seasons, and interference with such right and a consequent injury."
The sáme general principles are announced by the supreme court in Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 514. Mr. Justice Field, in delivering the opinion of the court, after citing and reviewing certain cases in the courts of California and Nevada, said:
"What diminution of quantity or deterioration in quality will constitute an invasion of the rights of the first appropriator will depend upon the special circumstances of such case, considered with reference to the uses to which the waste water is applied. In all controversies, therefore, between him and parties subsequently claiming the water, the question for determination is necessarily whether his use and enjoyment of the water to the extent of his original appropriation have been impaired by the acts of the defendant."
Upon a review of the evidence, and of the principles of law applicable thereto, we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the circuit court is correct. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.