| OCR Text |
Show 434 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES (6) The officers of an organization who stood by and allowed another organization to enlarge the ditch which they controlled, and to expend money and labor on the common ditch with the understanding that the second organization had acquired an interest in the same, were estopped to deny the right of the latter.931 Other Party Lack of knowledge.- Various courts have indicated that in establishing an estoppel, it must appear that the other party was destitute not only of all knowledge of the true state of the title, but also of the means of acquiring such knowledge.932 Reliance upon admission. -It must also appear that the other party relied directly upon the admission of the water right holder, and that he will be injured by allowing its truth to be disproved.933 The elements constituting estoppel must be found in some representations made or some position assumed, upon which the other party, having the right so to do, in good faith relied and from which inequitable consequences must follow if the representations be repudiated or the position be changed.934 The party who claims the estoppel obviously could not have relied upon the conduct of the other had he known the true state of the latter's title; hence his lack of such knowledge is essential to the estoppel.935 "All these authorities agree that no estoppel can exist unless the party invoking it was led to place himself in the prejudicial position, in part, at least, by his own ignorance of the rights of the other party, his own lack of knowledge of the true state of the title." In the absence of such knowledge as to the true state of the water title, it is necessary that the party claiming the Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 57 Idaho 403, 411, 66 Pac. (2d) 115 (1937). However, it is not considered adverse possession by a junior appropriator when it is the duty of the prior appropriator to allow the junior appropriator's use of the water when the prior appropriator has no immediate need. Thus, since such use is not adverse, the prior appropriator could not have lost his prior right by laches or acquiescence. Marthiy v. Wells, 91 Idaho 215, 217-219, 419 Pac. (2d) 470, 473 (1966). 931 Halford Ditch Co. v. Independent Ditch Co., 22 N. Mex. 169,175,159 Pac. 860 (1916). 932Biddle Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 (1859); Farmers Res. & Irr. Co. v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 108 Colo. 482, 500, 120 Pac. (2d) 196 (1941); Smyth v. Neal, 31 Oreg. 105, 112-113, 49 Pac. 850 (1897); "the other party must have been ignorant of the truth," Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 541, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951). 933Bfddle Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 (1859); Tucson v. Koerber, 82 Ariz. 347, 356-357, 313 Pac. (2d) 41.1 (1957); La Luz Community Ditch Co. v. Alamogordo, 34 N. Mex. 127, 141, 145, 279 Pac. 72 (1929); Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 541, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951); Willadsen v. Crawford, 75 S. Dak. 161, 164, 60 N. W. (2d) 692 (1953); Risien v. Brown, 73 Tex. 135, 142-143, 10 S. W. 661 (1889); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 586, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). 934Moore v. Sherman, 52 Mont. 542, 547, 159 Pac. 966 (1916). 93SBiddle Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 (1859). |
