OCR Text |
Show REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT 225 Injunction In a considerable number of western cases, questions were raised as to the propriety of granting injunction and assessing damages in the same proceeding, or of choosing between the two remedies. This subject is discussed below under "Injunction or Damages or Both." Various cases that could properly be included under "Damages" or "Injunction" are left to the later topic. Appropriators "Injunction lies to restrain the wrongful diversion of water away from one lawfully entitled to the use thereof. Such remedy has been applied times without number."165 Applicability of injunctive relief. -In one of its early cases, the California Supreme Court said that while no equitable remedy of injunction could be had for a mere past diversion of water of a watercourse to the injury of the holder of a water right, nevertheless,166 "where the injury is continuing, relief may be appropriately sought in equity. It is only in equity that future injury can be restrained. Continued diversion of water from a party entitled to it, is such an irreparable injury as a Court of Equity will redress." Other decisions have emphasized the continuing nature of the injury that entitles the injured party to a restraining order.167 In such cases, the remedy by See also Moyle v. Salt Lake City, 111 Utah 201, 176 Pac. (2d) 882, 888 (1947), which rejected the contention that the reasonable rental value should be limited to the value of the use to which it had been put by the condemnee, in an action by a condemnee for temporary damages resulting from possession by the condemnor until the latter caused its own condemnation proceedings to be dismissed. A criticism of this approach to the measurement of the value of appropriative rights, by a dissenting justice in the case, appears in 176 Pac. (2d) at 893-903. 168 Olney Springs Drainage Dist. v. Auckland, 83 Colo. 510, 516, 267 Pac. 605 (1928). i6t> Tuolumne Water Co. v. Chapman, 8 Cal. 392, 397 (1857). The issuance of injuctions protecting prior appropriators from future injury to their water rights resulting from unlawful interference was approved in a number of cases during the early development of California water law. See Marias v. Bicknell, 10 Cal. 217, 224 (1858); Rupley v. Welch, 23 Cal. 452, 455-457 (1863); Stein Canal Co. v. Kern Island Irrigating Canal Co., 53 Cal. 563, 565 (1879); Lytle Creek Water Co. v. Perdew, 65 Cal. 447, 452, 4 Pac. 426 (1884). 161Cartier v. Buck, 9 Idaho 571, 573-577, 75 Pac. 612 (1904); MacKinnon v. Black Pine Min. Co., 32 Idaho 228, 230, 179 Pac. 951 (1919). A use of the stream channel, or an interference with the natural flow of water therein which, unless restrained, will continue to interfere with rights of prior appropriators and deprive them of water to which they are rightfully entitled, is wrongful and may be enjoined. Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co., 48 Idaho 383, 390-391, 396, 283 Pac. 522 (1929). The syllabus by the court in Loup River Public Power Dist. v. North Loup River Pub. Power & In. Dist, 142 Nebr. 141, 5 N.W. (2d) 240 (1942), contains the following paragraph. "16. A petition to determine relative rights to waters flowing in a public stream in this state, wherein the facts alleged show that plaintiff appropriated such water and applied the |