Federation of Tree Growing Clubs of America.

The Irrigation age (Volume 26) online

. (page 65 of 104)
Online LibraryFederation of Tree Growing Clubs of AmericaThe Irrigation age (Volume 26) → online text (page 65 of 104)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


neer of Idaho. Governor-elect Hawley is said to have
given assurances of his appointment.



At a recent meeting of the People's Irrigation Dis-
trict, embracing land in the vicinity of Payette, the final
records were made on the cost of construction of the
irrigation svstem, which is now complete. The cost was
$4,196.05, all of which has been paid.



Supreme Court Decisions



Irrigation Cases



LANDLORD AND TENANT.

In an action by a landlord to recover one-half of a
rice crop raised by defendant as plaintiff's tenant, defendant,
by a plea in reconvention, claimed damages for plaintiff's
failure to construct an irrigation lateral to his rice land,
and plaintiff in a supplemental petition alleged that, after
the water was turned in, defendant could easily have made
it sufficient, and was not entitled to damages, and defendant
answered by general denial, and alleging that after the water 1
was turned in plaintiff prevented him from fixing it, and
caused men to dig barrow pits or ditches on the inside
of such lateral, which became so boggy that defendant could
not use his teams inside the levee, and that he could not
take dirt from the outside to build it higher, as the land
belonged to third parties, defendant, to excuse his alleged
negligence could show that there were barrow pits outside
the levee rendering the taking of earth impossible, for the
general denial placed the burden of proving his negligence
on plaintiff, and anything which would rebut that was ad-
missible. Poultra v. Marti)i. Court of Civil Appeals of
Texas. 135 Southwestern 725.
ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS.

A decree adjudicating water rights gave each of certain
ditches a priority number, and an amount of water equal
to the carrying capacity of the ditch, followed by a pro-
viso limiting the amount of water permitted to flow into a
ditch to a designated number of cubic feet per second "until
such time as said parties shall have increased their cultivated
meadow and pasture thereunder land to more than (naming
the exact acreage then in cultivation) and then the increase
in the amount of water so permitted to flow into said ditch
shall only be in the ration and proportion of one cubic foot
per second for each 40 acres of such additional lands. And
provided, further, that said increase of such additional lands
and the user thereon of such proportionate additional amount
of water appropriated therefor shall be made with due dili-
gence." Held, that the decree was absolute as to that por-
tion decreeing that there should be permitted to flow into
the .respective ditches the amount of water that had at that
time been applied to a beneficial use and interlocutory as to
the remainder of the carrying capacity of such ditches, and
that whatever rights were covered by the interlocutory
portions were inchoate. Crawford Clipper Ditch Co. v. Needle
Rock Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 114 Pacific
655.
AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATION.

An allowance of one inch of water to an acre for
irrigation in adjusting priorities will not be increased to
allow for seepage and evaporation ; that amount being in-
tended to include such loss. Nevada Ditch Co. v. Canyon &
Sand Hollow Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Oregon. 114 Pa-
cific 86.
APPROPRIATION.

In this territory a corporation has the right to make
an appropriation of water from a natural stream and dis-
tribute it to those who may require it for purposes of irri-
gation, whether it has land connected with such irrigation
system or not. Hagerman Irrigation Co. v. McMurry. Su-
preme Court of New Mexico. 113 Pacific 823.
No MONOPOLY FOR PROMISCUOUS SALE.

The right to the beneficial use of water to be acquired
under the permit applied for under Act Feb. 24, 1909, known
as the "Water Code" (Laws 1909, p. 332) 45 et seq., is not
an opportunity to acquire a monopoly of the water of a
stream for promiscuous sale, but must contemplate a use on
specific land which, when completed under section 53, shall
become appurtenant to the land to which it is applied. Cook-
inham v. Lewis. Supreme Court of Oregon. 114 Pacific 88.
IRRIGATION BONDS.

Bonds issued by an irrigation district after a decree

confirming its proceedings in the issuance of bonds may be

held valid in the hands of bona fide holders and enforceable

by levy of assessments to pay interest after a later judgment

declaring the issuance of bonds to have been void. Haese



THE IRKIGATION AGE.



947



v. Heitzeg. Supreme Court of California. 114 Pacific 816.
ADVERSE USE.

The use of water by a subsequent appropriator does
not begin to be "adverse'," as against a prior appropriator,
unless it results in a deprivation to such appropriator, or
amounts to such an invasion of his rights as will enable
him at any time during the statutory period to maintain an
action against the subsequent appropriator. Featherman v.
Hennessey. Supreme Court of Montana. 113 Pacific 751.
JURISDICTION OF STATE ENGINEER.

A project to irrigate lands in New Mexico from the
water of a natural stream running from Colorado into New
Mexico, when the point of diversion, the head gate, and
about six miles of the irrigation ditch are in Colorado, is
not within the jurisdiction of the territorial engineer of New
Mexico, and he is without authority to issue a permit for
such a project. Turley v. Furman. Supreme Court of New
Mexico. 114 Pacific 278.
LEASE OF WATER PRIVILEGE.

The owner of semiarid land, by executing a contract of
lease therefor and granting the right to use an appurtenant
water privilege, impliedly covenants that he will do nothing
to interfere with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the real
estate or of the water privilege during the term. North
Platte Land & Water Co. v. Arnett. Supreme Court of
Nebraska. 130 Northwestern 752.
PERMIT OF USEK.

Defendant by agreeing at plaintiff's request that he and
his wife surrender all their rights as riparian owners in a
creek except those exercised by a certain ditch to get his
wife, in whose name the property stood, to waive such rights
did not amount to an acknowledgment of plaintiff's right to
prevent the diversion of water through such ditch so as to
prevent defendant from claiming a prescriptive right to main-
tain the ditch. Logan v. Guichard. Supreme Court of Cali-
fonia. 114 Pacific 989.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Where one leased land from an irrigation company, the
contract especially providing that each party should be the
owner in fee simple of one-half of the crop, and that the
company should furnish irrigation water for the crop, the
lessee by dividing the crop and giving the lessor one-half
was not estopped from claiming damages from the lessor for
breach of the contract to furnish water; no such intent
appearing from the contract. Beaumont Irrigating Company
v. Gregory. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. 136 South-
western 545.
CHANGE IN METHOD OF APPROPRIATION.

Where the withdrawal of upappropriated water from a
lake by subsequent appropriators required a change of
methods or means by which prior appropriators were enabled
to withdraw their water from a lake, and this entailed addi-
tional expense, such additional expense should be borne by
the subsequent appropriators as a condition to their right to
appropriate the unappropriated water. Salt Lake City v.
Gardner. Supreme Court of Utah. 114 Pacific 147.
COMPENSATION.

It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution,
by the provisions of this section, to provide that waters pre-
viously appropriated for manufacturing purposes may be
taken and appropriated for domestic use, upon due and fair
compensation therefor ; but it was not the intention to pro-
vide that water appropriated for manufacturing purposes
could thereafter arbitrarily and without compensation be ap-
propriated for domestic purposes. Montfelier Milling Co.
v. City of Montfelier. Supreme Court of Idaho. 113 Pacific
471.
DITCH AGREEMENT.

Defendant agreed with plaintiff that plaintiff might make
a ditch across defendant's land to convey water for plain-
tiff's crops, defendant to have the right to carry his own
water in the ditch, and to use plaintiff's water only when
not required by plaintiff. Held, in an action for depriving
plaintiff's crops of the necessary water, that it was no defense
that plaintiff did not have a valid appropriation of the water
claimed by him, so long as it was not defendant's. Dalton v.
Kelsey. Supreme Court of Oregon. 114 Pacific 464.
PRIORITY OF OWNERSHIP.

Riparian owners who located on claims in 1876, and were
residing thereon on February 28, 1877, when the lands were
opened to public settlement, and continued to reside thereon



until after patents were issued to them, had a claim to the
water rights prior to the water rights located in 1878 by
another, the patents relating back to the date of the
settlement, so that a provision in the patents that they were
subject to vested and accrued water rights did not apply.
Redwaler Land & Canal Co. v. Jones. Supreme Court of
South Dakota. 130 Northwestern 85.
INTERMITTENT FLOW.

Under an irrigation contract providing that the time and
manner of delivering and regulating the supply might be pre-
scribed by the water company by regulations made from time
to time, and that it might shut off water whenever it deemed
it necessary for repairs, a regulation providing for an inter-
mittent flow by dividing the consumers into two groups, and
delivering water to one group for three days, and to the other
for three days, could not be said as a matter of law to be
unreasonable, unless the amount of water agreed upon was
not furnished, in view of the rule that water contracts are
mutual and will be construed in the light of the necessities
of the parties, in case of dispute as to the amount. Shafford
v. White Bluffs Land 6- Irrigation Co. Supreme Court of
Washington. 114 Pacific 883.
IRRIGATION RIGHTS

Where, in a contest over rights of water for irrigation
purposes, the court found that a hundred inches of water was
necessary for the proper irrigation of J.'s riparian lands, it
was not essential that the amount of water in the stream or
the number of persons holding riparian rights should be
proved, to define the amount of J.'s reasonable use, as against
plaintiff, whose only right to the water as against J. was to
prevent him from wasting it. Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Cyclone
Ditch Co. Supreme Court of South Dakota. 128 Northwest-
ern 596.
INJUNCTION AGAINST DIVERSION

Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 2989, as amended by Laws 31st
Leg. c. 34, providing for the grant of a writ of injunction
where it shall appear that the party applying for the writ is
entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief or any part
thereof requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the
applicant, and Rev. St. 1895, art. 3115 et seq., declaring that
unappropriated waters of flowing rivers may be acquired for
irrigation and other purposes, a lower riparian owner is not
entitled to a temporary injunction against the diversion of
water for the irrigation of nonriparian land in the absence of
a showing that his land is now being used or is intended for
immediate use or is prepared for agricultural or other pur-
poses rendering the use of the water of the river necessary
and beneficial. Biggs v. Lefflngwell. Court of Civil Appeals
of Texas. 132 Southwestern 902.
OBSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION DITCH

Where the complaint, in an action to quiet title to an
irrigation ditch, and to enjoin interference therewith, and for
damages for a wrongful interference, showed that the object
of the suit was to prevent defendant from inflicting on plaintiff,
irreparable injury, and to obtain compensation for damages al-
ready individually suffered by him from the acts of defendant,
allegations of the complaint that plaintiff had conveyed to
third person tracts of land with a distinct agreement that the
tracts were entitled to receive the benefits of irrigation by
means of the ditch, and that defendant's obstruction of the
ditch would subject plaintiff to litigation, did not require that
the third persons be made parties, since such allegations merely
disclosed the extent of the injury to plaintiff through the con-
duct of defendant, and plaintiff could obtain equitable relief
and compensation for the damages suffered by him. Sisk v.
Casn-ell. Court of Appeal, Third District, California. 112
Pacific 185.



The Milford Improvement Company of Salt Lake has
filed articles of incorporation, showing a capital stock of
$10.000. They will carry on a construction, irrigation and
general farm business.



?48



THE IEKIGATION AGE.



CORRESPONDENCE



Seattle, Wash., May 17, 1911.
IRRIGATION AGE,

Chicago, 111.

Dear Editor: We would like to know the United States
government standard of water on irrigated projects per-
taining to the state of Washington, and also what one (1)
cubic foot of water per second of time for one hundred
and sixty acres of land figures in gallons per acre. We
would like to have you figure this out and publish the
answer in your next issue, if possible.

Yours very truly,

BANGHAM & FLETCHER.

Regarding the first question as to the United States
government standard of water on irrigated projects in the
state of Washington, the Editor requests some more definite
specification, as he don't quite get at the meaning.

As to the second query, what one cubic ft. of water
per second figures in gallons per acre for 160 acres of land :
One cubic ft. of water is about 7.5 gallons, so that if a
flow of 1 cubic ft. per second is maintained for 160 seconds
it will deliver 7J/2 gallons per acre. Hence the time of flow
is a very important element; it should be remembered, for
instance, that if a stream of one cubic ft. per second was
flowing for say 100 hours steady, it would deliver 100 X 60
X 60 = 360,000 cubic ft. of water; if this is divided by
160 gives 2,250 cubic ft. per acre, which, multiplied
by tVi, gives 16,875 gallons per acre; since 1 acre contains
43,560 square feet the depth of this water all over an acre
can be found as follows : First multiply 2,250 by 12, which
gives 27,000; then divide this by 43,560, which gives a depth
of .62 1 inches or about 54". Editor.



WANTS INFORMATION.

Scobey, Mont., May 21.
IRRIGATION AGE:

I would like suggestions in your question department
regarding desert claim to be proved up by means of dam
and springs. What is best method of putting in dam when
there is a gravel subsoil? Also any other method of irri-
gating several hundred acres, not too expensive?

Yours respectfully,

HAROLD CLARK.

There is hardly enough information in this letter on
which to base any specific advice. The conditions indi-
cated would suggest springs as a source of water supply
and possibility of forming a small reservoir which, by rais-
ing the water level, can be made available to irrigate some
land at a lower level. In the April issue of THE IRRIGATION
AGE is a good description and many good suggestions how
to build a satisfactory dam on land of gravel subsoil. The
point especially to be watched is that the sheeting is driven
deep enough to prevent the seepage water from rising under
the dam and cutting away the soil from under its founda-
tion. See article on page 856 in the April issue of THE IRRI-
GATION AGE for more definite information. Editor.



FLOW OF ONE-EIGHTH CUBIC FEET PER
SECOND.

Stamford, Texas, May 23, 1911.
IRRIGATION AGE:

Please answer through your correspondence department.
I have a contract for 53.34 shares of the capital stock of
an irrigation company selling land under the Carey Act in
Idaho. Each share entitles me to ^ of a cubic foot of water
per second of time per acre. Is this ample water for irri-
gation where there is no rain, for all crops? Exactly how
much water is this? Under the Carey Act in Idaho what
recourse would I have should the contracted amount of
water not be supplied? Yours truly,

E. L. MATTOON.

A flow of water of Mi of a cubic ft. per second per
acre means a little less than a gallon (1 cubic ft. = 7.48
gallons) ; on this basis it means 60 gallons per minute and
3,600 gallons per hour and 86,400 gallons per day of 24
hours; if this is multiplied by 365 days it means 31,560,000
gallons per annum. Divide by 8 gives 3,942,000 cubic ft.



of water, and as an acre contains 43,560 square feet, by
dividing 43,560 into 3,942,000 gives a depth of 90^ ft. of
water per acre per year, equivalent to a rainfall of 1,086
inches per annum. This is an enormous amount of water
and would be entirely too much, only for the fact that the
water is turned on only occasionally when wanted. Thus
if the flow occurs only 1 day per month on an average
it will amount to a depth of 36.2 inches over the area of
the acre.



A SATISFACTORY AND INSTRUCTIVE
EXPLANATION.

Phoenix, Arizona, May 23, 1911.
Editor of the IRRIGATION AGE :

I have read with much interest your article in the May
number of your magazine on the Roosevelt dam in the Salt
river project. There are one or two inconsistencies in the
first part of the article, which is otherwise very accurate,
and a moment's consideration of the proofreader would
have shown the error.

On the fifth line from the bottom you state that the
reservoir covers an area of 16,300 acres, etc.; that it is over
200 feet deep at the dam but the average depth does not
exceed 16 feet, and when the reservoir is full it contains
1,284,200 acre feet of water. The average depth is, there-
fore, about eighty feet. Later on in the article you call
attention to the fact that water is leaking through the
rocks around the dam. Quite a considerable leakage does
exist through the rocks around the dam, but unfortunately
your correspondent was not aware, perhaps, of the fact that
that this water is warm in fact, quite warm. Under the
reservoir, a mile or two above the dam, there existed some
large hot springs which, since the reservoir lias filled par-
tially with water, have been forced to take another path
and follow the crevices in the rocks issuing along the walls
of the canyon for about a quarter of a mile below the dam.
All the water is warmer considerably than the water in the
reservoir, and much of it is so hot immediately where it
issues from the rock as to be unbearable to the jhand. The
rocks forming the side wall of the canyon, dip upstream at an
angle of about twenty-five degrees so that, if the water fol-
lows the seams in the rock, it must pass under the dam
at a depth of from 300 to 500 feet below the bottom of
the dam. The sidewalls of the canyon, through the crevices
of which small streams of hot water are issuing, are quartz-
ite, and during the time in which there has been water
in the reservoir (over two years now), there has been no
increase in the flow and on one side of the canyon a very
material decrease.

Very truly yours,

Louis C. HILL.
Supervising Engineer.

We are glad to thus hear directly from Mr. Hill, Super-
vising Engineer, giving such satisfactory and instructive facts
in relation to the Roosevelt dam, and our readers will, no
doubt, appreciate the same. Editor.



THANKS, MR. COLLINS.

San Antonio, May 19, 1911.
D. H. Anderson :

You will please find enclosed two dollars. Please move
me up two years. I have taken your paper since its first
year and it is well worth . many times its price. I have
been interested in irrigation in Texas since 1872 and have
now, I think, the best 170 acre farm in the United States.
Can sell for $1,500 an acre. How is that for an irrigated
farm in Texas, where all plants have thorns and frogs have
horns ? Truly yours,

F. F. COLLINS.



FARMERS' INSTITUTE WORKERS' ANNUAL
MEETING.

May 34, 1911.
Editor Irrigation Age:

The next annual meeting of the American Associa-
tion of Farmers' Institute Workers will be held at Colum-
bus, Ohio, November 13 to 15, 1911. At the same place
and beginning November 15, will be held the annual meet-
ing of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges
and Experiment Stations.

Notice is sent out thus early in order that farmers'



THE IRRIGATION AGE.



949



institute workers in arranging their work may have in
mind the date of this meeting, and so arrange that it
may be possible for all who are interested to attend.
Very truly yours,

JOHN HAMILTON,
Farmers' Institute Specialist.



ELECTRIC IRRIGATION BY THE NORTHERN
COLORADO POWER COMPANY.

THE pumping of underflow and seepage water, from wells
for irrigation purposes throughout the northern part of
the state of Colorado and southern Wyoming has been car-
ried on with increasing popularity during the past eighteen
months.

The Northern Colorado Power Company has a large steam
power plant of 15,000 horse power capacity located in the
center of the northern coal fields, twenty miles from Denver,
from which several hundred miles of transmission and dis-
tribution lines are carried throughout a splendid agricultural
country.

The pumping s very largely done by individual farmers
who have installed motor driven centrifugal pumps operated
by electric motors, which supply water from wells, averaging
in depth from fifteen to twenty-five feet, and for tracts of
land varying from eighty to six hundred and forty acres from
a single well.

There is a pronounced underflow underlying the entire
northern part of the state, east of the mountains, stretching
out from the foot hills towards the plains, and twenty feet is
the average depth at which water is found in dependable
quantities.

The first years efforts to secure the adoption of electric
drive for irrigation work was purely a matter of education,
as the average farmer looked upon the use of electric current
as something suitable for the manufacturing industries in the
city, for the lighting of city homes, and for general uses in
the city, but had not considered its use in the light of a pos-
sible advantage for use upon the farm.

Practically one hundred plants are now in operation on
the Northern Company's lines, irrigating about sixteen thou-
sand acres of land, most of which lying above the ditch was
formerly considered of very small value as agricultural lands
and was purchased at prices ranging about twenty dollars per
acre, but by the installation of the pumping plants has been in-
creased in value to two hundred dollars to two hundred and
fifty dollars per acre.

The farmers making use of motor driven pumps are very
enthusiastic regarding the results which they receive and next
to the low cost which they experience in carrying on the irri-
gation work by this means the tremendous advantage which
they claim to be secured by being able to irrigate on the
very days and hours which they deem best, and with just the
proper amount of water, is of the greatest value to them.

Other than pumping from wells, use is made of pumping
water from ditches, streams and reservoirs to lands above the
ditch and many land owners who control water rights have
found it advantageous to dispose of their ditch right to other
parties and pump the underflow at a profit to themselves.

A considerable number of plants have been installed where
pumping has been done from marsh or swamp lands. Here
the work has been found to be doubly advantageous by drain-
ing the lowlands and reclaiming the swamps, which were of
no value previously, and by raising the water to the table
lands above, effecting a double service by one pumping.

On the system used by the Northern Colorado Power
Company the electric current leaves the power house at a pres-
sure of 44,000 volts and is carried to the numerous sub-stations
located in the towns throughout the territory, where it is
stepped down to 2,300 or 6,600 volts for local distribution.

The power company supplies the commercial and municipal
demands in some twenty cities and towns and carries on its
poles connecting the several towns low voltage wires, from
which extensions can be made at any point to connect up the
individual farmer's plants.

Usually 2,300-volt motors are installed and these average
about twenty horse power each.

Current for this work is sold on the basis of a "fixed
charge" of one dollar per horse power per month, for the irri-
gation months of May to September inclusive, plus a charge
of three cents per kilowatt hour for the current consumed as
measured by an electric meter.

Under the conditions the cost to the farmer for electric



service and for interest and depreciation on his pumping plant
will amount to from $1.00 to $2.00 per acre foot when water
is being raised through a 25-foot lift, the variation depending
upon the load factor under which the pumping is carried on,



Online LibraryFederation of Tree Growing Clubs of AmericaThe Irrigation age (Volume 26) → online text (page 65 of 104)