OCR Text |
Show of jurisdiction to try the question submitted to them by your order herein, there was no error committed. The decision of your office recognizes the clearly established fact, that whatever right to water from Wisconsin creek Evans may have had in 1866 or 1867 had been transferred by him to Sullivan; and, consequently, that the finding by the local office that at the date of Sullivan's entry, December 27, 1879, all the water of said creek had been appropriated, was a finding of fact, irrelevant to the issue. Your office found, as a matter of fact, that Evans, "about the year 1866 or 1867, constructed a ditch from Wisconsin *[8] Creek, carrying from two hundred to two hundred and fifty inches of water." A preponderance of the evidence shows, that said ditch was commenced in the fall of 1866 and completed in the spring of 1867, and that its capacity was then two hundred and fifty inches. It is further shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that during the years 1867, 1868, and 1869, Evans used water from said ditch in irrigating a portion of the claim which he sold to Sullivan, and that Sullivan, without formal notice or protest from prior appropriators, continued to use water from said ditch from and including the year 1870, up to the year 1879, at which time a notice was posted at the head of his ditch by Christianson, Pillsbury and two others, warning him not to use the water from said creek. No attention appears to have been paid to this notice, as Sullivan continued to use the water as he needed it. Nor were any legal steps taken at that time or since 111-48 |
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] : |