OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT 509 would require an unduly expensive conduit.363 In other cases, extremely porous soil was cause for allowances of water higher than the norm.364 Factors for consideration in arriving at the quantity of water to be allowed an appropriator were announced by courts from time to time.365 In 1954, the Colorado Supreme Court listed "suggestions of matters properly to be considered in determining the duty of water." These were:366 Land characteristics at the place of use are important; location; slope; depth of soil; whether it is loose or close; if underlain with gravel or impervious material; its composition and general adaptability for the growing of irrigated crops; all are taken into consideration. Climate is a feature not to be overlooked, as also are the kinds of crops ordinarily grown thereon and the proportion of the area devoted to each type of crop and the rotation thereof. In fact, every element that concerns or affects the consumption of water in the particular case before the court is to be considered. * * * Although evidence as to duty of water has long been widely presented by trained technicians, some courts accorded a warmer welcome to testimony by local farmers with long experience in practices of farming under irrigation. Thus, in a Montana case: "Again, as to the evidence, while that of the experts is very valuable on location and measurements, still the testimony of the men on the land, who know the soil, the kind of crops that can be raised on it, and who have spread the water and dug into that soil, and watched the effect during the entire growing season, brings in evidence of considerable weight."367 363Hedges v. Riddle, 75 Oreg. 197,198,146 Pac. 99 (1915). 364 In re Rogue River, 117 Oreg. 477,481, 244 Pac. 662(1926); Worden v. Alexander, 108 Mont. 208, 212-213, 90 Pac. (2d) 160 (1939). 365 Some of the earlier declarations included: Character of area, climatic conditions, location and altitude of lands, kind of crops, period of irrigation time, necessary method of irrigation, and head of water at the intake: Hough v. Porter, 51 Oreg. 318, 417420, 95 Pac. 732 (1908), 98 Pac. 1083 (1909), 102 Pac. 728 (1909). Acreage of irrigable land, degree of sterility of premises, most profitable crops to be raised under irrigation, quantity of water required by careful husbandry: Donnelly v. Cuhna, 61 Oreg. 72, 76, 119 Pac. 331 (1911). Character of soil, climate, and other conditions, as well as manner of application of water: Little Walla Walla In. Union v. FinisIrr. Co., 62 Oreg. 348, 351, 124 Pac. 666, 125 Pac. 270 (1912). Character of soil: intended irrigated area; climatic conditions; location, quality, and altitude of lands; kinds of intended crops; length of irrigation season; other conditions peculiar to each particular case: Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 207 Cal. 8, 21-22, 276 Pac. 1017 (1929). 366Farmers' Highline Canal & Res. Co. v. Golden, 129 Colo. 575, 584-585, 272 Pac. (2d) 629 (1954). ^Federal Land Bank v. Morris, 112 Montana 445, 452453, 116 Pac. (2d) 1007 (1941). Two years earlier, the same court declined to give controlling weight to the testimony of qualified irrigation engineers that all lands involved required only 1 inch per acre for |