OCR Text |
Show ROTATION IN USE OF WATER 619 provides the user with a larger flow of water when available than his shares of stock represent, thus enabling him to complete his irrigation in a comparatively short time after the water is shut off-which results in better irrigation and less waste of water than can be accomplished with a smaller stream of continuous flow over a longer period-the court should not limit the user to the quantity of water represented by his shares in the company.129 Appellate court cases in a few other jurisdictions involving rotation of water within canal enterprises have come to attention.130 Imposition of Rotation Plan by Court Decree After having recognized the judicial remedy of rotation as among riparian owners to permit the beneficial use of water by all landowners concerned, the California Supreme Court early in this century applied it to appropriators also, in view of the fact that the appropriative right extends only to beneficial use of water. As a guide to trial courts faced by the problem of imposing rotation systems as between appropriators, the supreme court said that:131 If there is not water enough (and this appears to be the fact) to permit a diversion of the stream and a simultaneous use of part by both parties without injury, the court may by its decree fix the times when, by rotation, the whole may be used by each at different times in proportion to their respective rights. In doing so, the court should recognize the paramount and primary right of the respondent to the first flow in a full ditch and the use of all of it, or a lesser quantity, for given periods during the irrigating season, as it may be required. If this can be done so that by giving respondent the first flow for a week or every other week, or on certain days in the week, and the appellant the right thereto in the intervals, the wants of respondent are fully supplied, he obtains all he is entitled to and has no ground of complaint. While this remedy of rotation and use of waters for irrigation purposes has been more generally \ applied as between riparian proprietors * * * , in principle there is no reason why it should not be made applicable as between claimants by appropriation. * * * At about the same time, the Oregon Supreme Court stated that "The trend of the later decisions is to apply this method where practicable."132 129Ramseyer v. Jamerson, 78 Idaho 504, 514-515, 305 Pac. (2d) 1088 (1957);Simonson v.Moon, 72 Idaho 39,47, 237 Pac. (2d) 93 (1951). 130Anderson v. Cook, 25 Mont. 330, 331-339, 64 Pac. 873, 65 Pac. 113 (1901);Honaker v. Reeves County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 152 S. W. (2d) 454, 456 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941, error refused). 13lHuffordv.Dye, 162 Cal. 147,160-161,121 Pac. 400 (1912). 132McCoy v. Huntley, 60 Oreg. 372, 376,119 Pac. 481 (1911). See also Contrail v. Sterling Min. Co., 61 Oreg. 516, 526, 122 Pac. 42 (1912). |