Court Opinion

ID: 9546837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:36:20.429658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:56.049714
License: Public Domain

FARLEY, Superior Court Judge
(dissenting) .
The issue is principally one of fact to determine whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings. The rule has been repeatedly stated in this jurisdiction that *206■where testimony is conflicting the findings and judgment, in the absence of a mistake of law, will be upheld; but if the testimony supporting the appellants’ claim is uncontradicted, or there is no substantial or reasonable evidence to support the findings and judgment, they will be set aside. State Tax Commission v. Magma Copper Co., 41 Ariz. 97, 15 P.2d 961; LaRue v. Kosich, 66 Ariz. 299, 187 P.2d 642; In re Gary’s Estate, 69 Ariz. 228, 211 P.2d 815; Blaine v. Blaine, 63 Ariz. 100, 159 P.2d 786. This case comes within the latter exception as I view the evidence.
It is plaintiffs’ position that defendants' interference substantially lessens the flow of flood waters at their ranch, and that their rights are prior and superior to any possessed by the defendants, except for the limited uses the defendants had for stock watering in 1919, and that plaintiffs’ testimony respecting the validity of their appropriation was wholly uncontradicted and consequently they were entitled to have a finding declaring the validity of their appropriation. Likewise, they urge the proof was uncontested that defendants’ diversion and dams enlarged their uses far beyond that being made for stock watering purposes when plaintiffs’ appropriation had become established and beyond their present needs, and as to such additional uses their rights were junior to plaintiffs’.
The defendants, however, take the position that they and their predecessors in interest were using water for stock purposes at the time the plaintiffs’ rights were initiated, and that plaintiffs have failed to establish the right to the waters of Chino Wash upon which they base their complaint.
The majority view concedes that “all the contesting parties have some rights to the use of the waters in the drainage area, plaintiffs for irrigation and the defendants for stock watering”, but the extent of such rights are not defined.
A review of the transcript of evidence reveals that prior to 1946 defendants and their predecessors in interest diverted no appreciable amount of water from Ash Creek, and maintained only small dams or watering-places 7 to 10 feet in height on Partridge and Johnson Creeks which were capable of holding approximately 50 acre-feet of water, and which were in no way comparable to-the present structures. Such were the limits of defendants’ rights in 1919 when plaintiffs’ rights became vested. The testimony was uncontradicted that the new structures were greatly enlarged over the previous, dams used by defendants and were constructed in such a manner that a great deal of water was lost by seepage into the porous, side walls.
It is to be noted that the majority'opinion, recognizes plaintiffs’ contention that their rights have been impaired because the changes made by defendants have resulted in the capturing and storage of water in excess of the needs of the defendants, but like the defendants it fails to answer that-contention. Inasmuch as defendants’ rights-*207for stock watering purposes are necessarily grounded upon its needs, it follows that some definite limitations should be placed upon the size of its obstructions and quantity of water impounded.
It is ineluctable that the net result of defendants’ dams and diversion have been to obstruct, divert or dissipate a great quantity of water, beyond defendants’ normal requirements, which would normally reach plaintiffs. To sum up, it may be said that since 1913 until 1946 plaintiffs had an adequate supply of water for their farming enterprise, which they can no longer enjoy since the construction of defendants’ dams and diversion. That simple, inescapable fact leads to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower court was erroneous and should be reversed.