Marsters v. United States
Decision Date | 05 September 1916 |
Docket Number | 2654. |
Parties | MARSTERS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Joseph H. Peterson, Atty. Gen., of Idaho, E. G. Davis, of Boise Idaho, T. C. Coffin, of Pocatello, Idaho, and Herbert Wing of Boise, Idaho, for appellants.
J. L McClear, U.S. Atty., J. R. Smead, Asst. U.S. Atty., and B. E Stoutemyer, Counsel U.S. Reclamation Service, all of Boise, Idaho.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
The Boise river is one of the streams of Idaho, the waters of which are used in part for the purpose of irrigation in Ada and Canon counties of that state, and the United States is one of the appropriators, under an application filed by certain citizens and residents of the state with its state engineer for permit to divert and appropriate 5,200 cubic feet per second of the said waters for the irrigation of certain lands within the state, now known as the 'Government Boise project.' The application having been approved by the state engineer and a permit granted to the applicants, the latter was assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, who, under and in pursuance of the Act of Congress of June 17, 1902, c. 1093, 32 Stat. 388 (Comp. St. 1913, Secs. 4700-4708), known as the Reclamation Act, caused surveys to be made and work to be done to the extent of appropriating and using 1,647 second feet of the waters of the river, with the approval of the state engineer, in pursuance of the project, the date of the government's appropriation being December 4, 1903. Prior to that date, however, there had been and then were in existence 134 prior appropriations of the waters of the river, for the purpose of adjudicating the rights and priorities of which an action had been commenced in the preceding year of 1902 in one of the courts of the state, to which action the United States therefore could not have been made a party, and has not since been made a party. The United States diverted the water so appropriated and claimed by it by means of headgates and a canal constructed on its own land, and was so using it in July, 1913, when the appellants, acting, respectively, as water commissioner and water master of water division No. 3 of the state of Idaho, and claiming that it was necessary to deprive the government of a part of the water which it was thus diverting, in order that prior appropriators might be supplied with the water to which they were entitled, first applied to the manager of the government project to turn into the river the amount so claimed to be so needed, which request being refused, the appellants, acting under the advice of the Attorney General of the state, on the 11th day of July, 1913, entered upon the property of the United States and cut the locks fastening the said gates, took a part of the water then being diverted and used by the government, and proceeded to regulate the flow of the water of the river as they claimed it should be. The next day, July 12, 1913, the United States commenced in the court below the present suit against the appellants as defendants, to recover damages for their action and an injunction restraining such acts. The court below gave the complainant judgment for $1,000 besides costs, from which judgment the present appeal was taken.
Sections 3274, 3275, and 3277 of the Revised Codes of Idaho as amended in 1909 (Session Laws 1909) are as follows:
The foregoing statutory provisions constitute what is claimed to be authority for the acts of the water commissioner and water master complained of. It is readily seen that it is expressly declared in the last proviso of section 3274 that the section 'shall not apply to streams or water...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District
...of a state organized district, are, as against possible future federal government appropriators, precarious enough at best. (Marsters v. United States, 236 F. 663.) Should add to the potential hazards of such appropriators? If the Secretary of the Interior without this provision in the cont......
-
Owen v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation Dist.
...Stewart Decree being hereby fixed and determined as the highest duty of water during the irrigation season of 1915." The case of Marsters v. United States, supra, was decided prior to the orders of Judge Bryan just and therefore is not applicable and cannot be said to determine the present ......