Court Opinion

ID: 9583728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:41:35.1335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:51.794186
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in affirmance of the judgment. But due to the difficulty concerning the measure of damages, desire to make this comment: It is true that normally the damages awardable for the failure to deliver one second foot of water would be the value of the water. However, insofar as we can discover, that point was not raised either in the district court or in this court. In fact, the plaintiffs own evidence, through their expert on value, Marcellus Palmer, was:
Q Now, what do you appraise this property then to be per acre without water ?
A The subject property has had some improvement done on it. It’s got a fairly good fence on it and to my opinion that in its native state that is without any irrigation, it’s worth about $500 an acre. If it had a good water right it would be my opinion that it would be worth $1500 an acre.
The trial court awarded plaintiffs damages on their own theory. That is, a diminution in value of the land because of lack of water; and then scaled it down based on the contract price and acreage. Inasmuch as neither party has made any issue of that matter in this court, I join in affirming the judgment.