OCR Text |
Show 220 PROTECTION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES might have been the proper measure of damages, but such is not the fact in this case. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. v. Richards, 22 Colo. 450, 45 Pac. 423 (1896). The court also approved the trial court's further instruction to the jury in substance that:149 [A] 11 evidence as to the probable maturing of the crops, the cost of harvesting, and the probable yield thereof, the climatic condition of the seasons, and the condition and yield of crops on adjacent lands for the same years, should only be considered in so far as they assisted in determining the value of the crops as above mentioned. (4) In an action for damages for the obstruction of a watercourse causing flood water to back up onto plaintiffs premises, the Oklahoma Supreme Court indicated that the measure of damages for injury to growing crops is the value of the unmatured crops at the time of the injury. This value is determined by evidence of (a) the probable yield of the crops when finally harvested at maturity, and (b) their market value when matured and ready for market, less costs of finishing the cultivation and of gathering, preparing, and transporting the crops to market. With respect, however, to anticipated loss of crops which the farmer was prevented from planting because of the flooding, the measure of damages is the reasonable rental value of the land for the season. 15° (5) In a Utah case involving interference with appropriative rights that caused a celery crop failure in 1955, the defendants contended that "plaintiffs, if entitled at all, should be allowed only the reasonable rental value of the property, since the crops had not been planted yet."151 The Utah Supreme Court said "We recognize the merit of this general statement" but it concluded that "here we have a situation where, although the crop was not planted out in the field, for a period of two months prior to the time defendants cut off plaintiffs water supply, the plaintiffs had about 200,000 celery plants in a greenhouse, and there was little to do except perform a simple transplant operation."152 (6) A California case involved an action for damages for a water company's failure to deliver water to the plaintiff for the irrigation of 42 acres of land for the growing season of 1906. The plaintiff obtained one crop of alfalfa but 1S0Garrett v. Haworth, 183 Okla. 569, 573-574, 83 Pac. (2d) 822 (1938). 151Kano v. Arcon Corp., 1 Utah (2d) 431, 326 Pac. (2d) 719, 721 (1958). In an earlier case, the Utah Supreme Court approved as the measure of damages the reasonable yearly market value of the water from 1892 to 1898 for irrigation purposes. North Point Consol In. Co. v. Utah & S. L. Canal Co., 23 Utah 199,63 Pac. 812, 814 (1901). 152 326 Pac. (2d)at721. |