In re Hood River
Decision Date | 29 July 1924 |
Parties | IN RE HOOD RIVER. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hood River County; Fred W. Wilson, Judge.
In the matter of the determination of the relative rights of the various claimants to the use of the waters of Hood river and its tributaries, a tributary of the Columbia river, in Hood River county, Or. Suit by the Oregon Lumber Company against the East Fork Irrigation District and others. From a decree the named defendant and others appeal. Modified and affirmed.
Hood river is a perennial, nonnavigable stream. It rises in the Cascade Mountains, in the southwesterly part of Hood River county, and flows in a northeasterly and easterly direction through Hood River Valley and empties into the Columbia river. The land irrigated from Hood river and its tributaries is semiarid, and irrigation is necessary for the raising of profitable crops, which are adapted to that climate and country.
This adjudication had its inception in a suit in the circuit court for Hood River county, by the Oregon Lumber Company against the East Fork Irrigation District. From a decree of the circuit court in favor of the district, the Oregon Lumber Company appealed to this court. On May 23, 1916, the decree appealed from was reversed, and the matter remanded to the circuit court, with directions to transfer the same to the water board for determination. See Oregon Lumber Co. v East Fork Irrigation District, 80 Or. 568, 157 P. 963.
Contest No. 1--Oregon Lumber Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v East Fork Irrigation District, Appellant and Respondent Pacific Power & Light Company, a Corporation, Appellant and Respondent, Mt. Hood Water Company, a Corporation, Appellant and Respondent, and Glacier Irrigating Company, a Corporation, et al., Respondents.
This controversy, as far as the Oregon Lumber Company is concerned, is mainly with the claimants, East Fork Irrigation District, Mt. Hood Water Company, and the Glacier Irrigation Company; their claims being the only ones which would materially interfere with the Oregon Lumber Company. For convenience we will refer to the Oregon Lumber Company as the "Lumber Company," the East Fork Irrigation District as the "District," the East Fork Irrigation Company, predecessor in interest of the East Fork Irrigation District, as the "Irrigation Company," the Mt. Hood Water Company as the "Mt. Hood Company," and the Glacier Irrigation Company as the "Glacier Company."
The Oregon Lumber Company claims, by virtue of an appropriation and use made in April, 1906, 340 second feet of the water of the East fork of Hood river for the purpose of generating electrical power for its lumber mill, and an additional 30 second-feet as leakage and seepage, and for a fish ladder. The water board found from the evidence in substance as follows: The Oregon Lumber Company, without the posting of any notices, went upon the East fork of Hood river and commenced to construct a dam for the purpose of diverting the water for use as power. The Lumber Company began work upon the dam in September, 1905, and completed the same and applied the water to the purpose of developing power about the middle of the year 1906 and within a reasonable time, and fixed the date of relative priority of the Lumber Company as September, 1905, and awarded 322 second feet of water for power purposes, and for leakage and fish ladder 13 second feet, making a total of 335 second feet. The board also found in substance as follows:
The rights of the East Fork Irrigation District appear to have originated with certain notices of appropriation, one filed by the East Fork Irrigation Canal Company, recorded on the 4th day of October, 1895, together with a map giving the outline of the ditch and calling for 5,000 miner's inches of water, the ditch to be 6 feet wide on the bottom, 12 feet wide at the top, and 4 feet deep. A second notice was filed by the East Side Water Supply Company for 2,000 miner's inches of water, recorded on October 15, 1895, the ditch to be 6 feet wide on the bottom, 10 feet wide at the top, and 3 feet deep. A further notice was filed by the East Fork Irrigation Company for 7,000 miner's inches of water, and recorded about the 25th day of November, 1895, which notice calls for a ditch 12 feet wide on the bottom, 18 feet wide at the top, and 4 1/2 feet deep. The maps filed with these notices show that the ditches were all to take about the same general course, and extend from the point of diversion on the East fork of Hood river, in a northerly and slightly easterly direction to the Columbia river. The claim of the Irrigation District shows that there are about 11,380 acres of irrigable land, which can be irrigated from the ditch. Using the last notice as a basis for their water rights, and dating their water right from November 25, 1895, and the size of the ditch as designated in that notice, and the grade of the ditch as shown by the testimony, constructed at one-eighth inch per rod a short way, and then changed to a grade of one-tenth inch per rod with the depth of water at 4 feet, the board found the capacity of the district ditch to be 142 second feet, or 5,680 miner's inches, and limited the amount of the water of the district to the capacity of the ditch as provided by the statute of 1891, and fixed the capacity of the ditch at the figures mentioned above.
With regard to the question whether or not due diligence in applying the water to a beneficial use had been maintained, on the part of the district, the board found in substance thus:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Smith
...& G. Co. v. Bramwell, 108 Or. 261, 217 P. 332, 32 A.L.R. 829; Turney v. J. H. Tillman Co., 112 Or. 122, 228 P. 933; Re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or. 112, 227 P. 1065. In the Cowgill case this court exercised the power to which we have 'After a careful consideration of the authorities,......
-
Brusco Towboat Co. v. State, By and Through Straub
...articulated by the Supreme Court, although it was discussed in the concurring opinion of McBride, C. J., in Re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or. 112, 188, 227 P. 1065 (1924). That case upheld the 1909 Water Code against contentions by riparian owners that its dilution of their alleged rip......
-
Williams v. City of Wichita
...206 U.S. 46, 94, 27 S.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956, 973; Sternberger v. Seaton Co., 45 Colo. 401, 403, 102 P. 168; In re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or. 112, 227 P. 1065; State ex rel. Emery v. Knapp, supra; Baumann v. Smrha, supra). The effect of the common-law doctrine in Kansas under the Ac......
-
State v. Waterhouse
...insofar as the law was cognizant with the public policy, the constitution, and statutory enactments of the state. In re Water Rights of Hood River, 114 Or. 112, 227 P. 1065; Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Bayer, 273 U.S. 647, 47 S.Ct. 245, 71 L.Ed. 821; Peery v. Fletcher, 93 Or. 43, 182 P. OR......