OCR Text |
Show [24] His showing as to crop results is as follows: "Yes, 15 acres was cleared, leveled, bordered, irrigated and seeded to barley and corn mixed. The barley was planted in March 1924. The corn in May, 1924, for the purpose of obtaining a crop which will pay a profit on the outlay involved. The barley is now mature, but the wind and sand destroyed so much of it that I had to seed milo maize on the same ground in the hope of getting a crop that would be profitable. The land so tilled has all been irrigated. Yes, as above stated, but so far no profitable harvest." The testimony of the proof witnesses is in substantial agreement with that of the entryman. The report of the Chief of Field Division rendered June 3, 1924, does not strengthen the showing made by claimant and his proof witnesses as to reclamation of the land and his water supply. According to the records of this office the lands are not within the exterior boundaries of the Imperial Irrigation District, nor is there any certificate from any officer of said district to the effect that the lands are within the district and will be supplied with water therefrom. They are however, within the area originally proposed to be irrigated by the Mount Signal Canal Company, and are included within the first form reclamation withdrawal approved October 19, 1920, and this case is similar to that of Maggie L. Havens, El Centro 06 in which the Department on October 11, 1923, held that action thereon and all entries similarly situated should be indefinitely suspended. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |