| OCR Text |
Show 618 EXERCISE OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT of stream waters under the State administrative laws. It is generally omitted from current codifications.122 Rotation Agreements Appropriators on Watercourse In 1904, the Wyoming Supreme Court observed that an agreement between several persons who had appropriated water, as tenants in common, to use the entire quantity on alternate weeks, respectively, where the evidence disclosed no injury to any of them, "does not seem objectionable in itself."123 Other agreements elsewhere have been similarly approved in cases in which no injury to outsiders was shown.124 Users on Enterprise Ditch System The Washington Supreme Court refused to hold that an irrigation company regulation providing for rotation through intermittent flow was unreasonable as a matter of law, and refused to disapprove such a regulation so long as the consumers received the quantities of water to which they were entitled.125 The Idaho Supreme Court recognized the right of consumers under an irrigation company ditch to enter into an agreement providing for the use of water in rotation as among themselves, and observed that: "Rotation in irrigation undoubtedly tends to conserve the waters of the state and to increase and encourage their duty and service, and is, consequently, a practice that deserves encouragement in so far as it may be done within legal bounds."126 As this practice is recognized by leading authorities as most efficient and desirable, contracts providing it will be enforced by the courts.127 But in the absence of contract, there is no vested right in one ditch cotenant to rotation in use of water by and with another.128 The Idaho Supreme Court has reaffirmed its earlier policy by holding that where the method of distribution of water by a mutual irrigation company 122For example, after having been a part of the California Irrigation District Act since its original enactment March 7,1887 (Cal. Stat. 1887, p. 29, § 43), but never having been construed by the appellate courts of that State and apparently never having been put to use, the section was omitted from the enactment of the California Water Code in 1943. The reason for omission was that the section was obsolete and unworkable, in view of provisions of the Water Code and preceding legislation relating to the utilization of water rights in California. 123 Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co., 13 Wyo. 208, 237, 79 Pac. 22 (1904). 12*Peake v. Harris, 48 Cal. App. 363, 378, 192 Pac. 310 (1920), hearing denied by California Supreme Court, August 27, 1920; In re Crab Creek, 194 Wash. 634, 642-644, 79 Pac. (2d) 323 (1938). 12*Shafford\. White Bluffs Land & Irr. Co., 63 Wash. 10, 13-15, 114 Pac. 883 (1911). i26Helphery v.Perrault, 12 Idaho 451,454, 86 Pac. 417 (1906). l21State v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 21 Idaho 410, 44M43, 121 Pac. 1039 (1911). ^Brighton Ditch Co. v. Englewood, 124 Colo. 366, 374, 237 Pac. (2d) 116 (1951). |
