Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties

page 254

254 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN UTAH. The complaint in the suit, which was entitled B. F. Bonelli v. T. J. Jones et al., was filed September 8, 1899, with the clerk of Lincoln County, Nev., at Pioche. Among other things it alleged (1) ownership by the plaintiff since February 12,1872, of 400 inches, miner's measurement, of the water of Muddy Creek flowing in the St. Thomas ditches, and (2) that during and since 1896 the defendants, without right and notwithstanding the protests of the plaintiff, had diverted said water to the injury of the plaintiff. The complaint prayed for $2,000 damage and an injunction restraining the defendants from diverting the water in question. The answer of the defendants was that the plaintiff had not at any time appropriated or put to beneficial use water in excess of sufficient to irrigate 10acres. The case went to trial November 8, 1899. Daniel Bonelli testified (1) that from 1872 to and including 1876, 57.5 acres of land had been irrigated and that 2.5 to 3 "inches" of water per acre were required for its proper irrigation; (2) that he rented his land after 1879 and could not tell what quantity of water was used; (3) that he stated to the other users from the ditch that they were using water belonging to him, but that no direct understanding was reached regarding this, and (4) that he had always claimed 400 inches or one-fourth of the ditch. B. F. Bonelli testified (1) that he took charge of the property in question as owner in 1893, and that he received a deed in 1894; (2) that in 1894 and 1896 his tenant irrigated 10 acres of vineyard requiring 25 or 30 inches of water; (3) that in 1897 20 acres were watered; (4) that in 1896 the other irrigators from the ditch objected to his having water for more than 10 acres, claiming that only 10 acres had been irrigated for a number of years, but that in reply he stated that he was entitled to 400 inches of water, and that when the water supply was reduced to 400 inches the others were using his water, and (5) that since 1890 all of the others denied his right to water for more than 10 acres. One of the defendants testified that the ditch was measured when full and in average condition sand was carrying 240 miner's inches under a 6-inch pressure, and that for the five or six years last past the ditch had carried not over 75 or 80 inches during July and August. On November 10, 1899, the court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for 60 inches of water under a 6-inch pressure, which was one-fourth of the largest amount the evidence showed the ditch to ha*re carried. December 17, 1900, the case went into court for a modification of judgment and the court ordered '"that if written consent to a modification of the judgment so far as to limit and restrict the right and use of th? plaintiff to 45 square inches of tha water ruoniug under a 6-inch pressure between noon of the 1st day of July of each year and noon of the 1st day of February of the following year- is filed on behalf of the plaintiff within sixty days, then the motion for a new trial shall be deemed denied but otherwise shall be granted." February 13,1901, the written consent provided for was filed for the plaintiff on consideration that no further proceedings should be taken by the defendants. Meantime an appeal was taken to the supreme court of Nevada from the court's decision on the motion for a new trial, and on June 27, 1901, the case was returned to the lowe.r court for retrial. In October, 1902, a new trisl had not been held, and there was a probability of the difficulty being settled outside of court. Summary f<rr Mvddy Creel'.-The whole cause of the disagreement which culminated in this litigation was a lack of an understanding- in the beginning as to the