Breyer v. Baker

• Decision Date: 30 March 1918
• Citation: 31 Idaho 387,171 P. 1135
• Parties: EDWARD J. BREYER, Appellant, v. ANDREW J. BAKER, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

171 P. 1135

31 Idaho 387

EDWARD J. BREYER, Appellant, v. ANDREW J. BAKER, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 30, 1918

WATER-WATER RIGHTS-SEEPAGE-APPROPRIATION THEREOF.

1. Seepage water from a canal having its source in a watershed other than that in which the seepage occurs is subject to appropriation under the provisions of Rev. Codes, sec. 3246.

[As to land owner's right in percolating waters, see note in 99 Am.St. 66]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Elmore County. Hon. James R. Bothwell, Judge.

Action to determine priority of water rights. Judgment for defendant. Modified.

Decree awarding to appellant 127/125 second-feet of the waters of Dixie Creek, and to respondent 1 second-foot affirmed. Decree awarding to respondent 30/50 of a second-foot of the seepage water from the canal of the Great Western Beet Sugar Company reversed, with directions. Each party shall pay his own costs on this appeal.

W. C Howie, for Appellant.

The use of water prior to a permit gives a better right. (Malad Vally Irr. Co. v. Campbell, 2 Idaho 411, 18 P. 52.)

E. J Dockery and Daniel McLaughlin, for Respondent, cite no authorities.

RICE J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.

OPINION

RICE J.

The appellant brought this action to quiet title to the waters of Dixie Creek, in Elmore county, alleging ownership of 162.9 acres of land and an appropriation of 3.2 cubic feet per second of water from the said creek, with date of priority in March, 1903. The respondent answered and filed a cross-complaint, alleging ownership of approximately 160 acres of land and an appropriation of certain seepage water, with date of priority some time in the spring of 1908, and a subsequent appropriation of the waters of Dixie Creek, with date of priority some time in the year 1913.

It is admitted that the 1913 appropriation of respondent is subsequent to the appropriation of appellant, but respondent maintains that he has a first right to the seepage water appropriated. The court found that the appellant owned 60.8 acres of land, which was susceptible of gravity irrigation from Dixie Creek and required artificial irrigation, and decreed the appellant 1 27/125 second-feet of water from the creek prior to any right of the respondent therein. The court decreed the respondent 1 second-foot of the waters of the creek, with date of priority subsequent to that of the appellant. The evidence is substantially conflicting upon the question as to how many acres of land the appellant irrigated, and there was no dispute as to the proper duty of water. The decree with reference to appellant's water right, therefore, should not be disturbed. No question is raised as to respondent's right to the 1 second-foot of water from the creek as decreed.

The only remaining question in the case is as to the right to the seepage water alleged to have been appropriated by the respondent and awarded to him by the decree. The record shows that the seepage water claimed by respondent escapes from the canal of the Great Western Beet Sugar Company, which began to carry water in the year 1908. There is no allegation in the respondent's...