water from the West Fork of the Walker River in Mason Valley. None of these state the amount of their claims. Out of thirty-six ditches from the Main Walker and its East and West Forks in Lyon County, only seventeen have any recorded notice whatever. Such notices as have been filed are generally worthless. The claim is either misstated, or not stated at all, in terms of any unit that is applicable. The same absurdity in claims is found concerning ditches all along the length of the East Fork and the West Fork in both California and Nevada. One claims "all the water flowing through said. Canyon in said stream, together with all water emptying into said. stream from springs, drains and other sources." Another claims "all the water of this Dogtown Creek and all of its branches and tributaries of every kind and description." There are seven ditches diverting water from Dogtown Creek and each one claims all the water. There is also a claim for "4,000 feet" from Dogtown Creek. There is a claim on the East Walker for 15,000 inches under a 20-inch pressure. On the Carson River in California and the Truckee River in California the claims are characterized by the same indefiniteness in regard to quantity of water diverted as has been seen on the Walker and Humboldt Rivers, but on the Carson and the Truckee Rivers in Nevada most settlers seem to have made a diligent effort to record their claims in accordance with the Act of 1889. In Churchill County on the Carson River there are twenty-one main ditches with an aggregate claim of 380 sec. feet. Measurements of their ditches in 1902 and 1903 would indicate that the ditches are of sufficient capacity to convey about 280 sec. feet. There are seven ditches on the Carson River in Lyon County. Their aggregate claim is for 215 sec. feet, and their ditches are capable of diverting about. 115 sec. feet. In Douglas County the aggregate amount of water claimed is 1,542 sec. feet, and the aggregate amount the ditches are capable of carrying is about 600 sec. feet. On the Truckee River for the Truckee Meadows in Nevada there are twenty-eight ditches diverting water and the aggregate of their claims is 1,368 sec. feet. The mean flow of the Truckee above all the ditches is for May, 2,125 sec. feet; for June, 1,490 sec. feet; for July, 698 sec. feet; for August, 562 sec. feet. It is unlikely that but little of this water once diverted can get back to the river above the points of diversion of the other ditches of this valley. It can be seen that all these claims can be satisfied during May and June, but during July there is sufficient water to satisfy only half of them, and in August but four-tenths of the claims. These claims are not in proportion to their actual diversions. Some of the claims are greatly in excess of the amount actually diverted and used, while others are less than the amount now diverted. From the foregoing it will have been seen that the method of recording ditches in use in California and in Nevada produced no records worthy of the name. The only. fact really proved by such a record is that at the time of filing the notice the claimant either had a ditch or was planning the construction of one. If filed under the Act of 1866, he was usually planning to construct a ditch, and whether or not the ditch was ever constructed the record does not tell. Not half of the claims filed under the act of 1866 resulted in actual construction, and the certificates for record were of such an indefinite character that they did not show what such certificates should show, namely: The name of the ditch; its location; the quantity of water it. diverted; the stream from which the water was taken; the description and acreage of the land irrigated; the date of the construction of the ditch; and the the dates when separate parcels of land were brought under cultivation. The filings made under the Act of 1889 were of a little more value, but these, too, are objectionable as forming the basis for the determination of rights in that the claims to water set up by these filings whenever definite are excessive. In many cases claims have been made to ten times the amount of water ever used, and in certain cases to one hundred times the water used or needed. They are often indfinite, not stating the amount of water required, or the descriptions and dimensions of the ditch with sufficient detail and exactness as to render it possible to calculate its capacity. They did not state the acreage of land irrigated, but the acreage for which water was claimed. They did not give the years during which the different parcels of land for which water was claimed had been brought under cultivation. Wherever a ditch has become abandoned the records show nothing concerning that fact. Many ditches were not recorded at all. LITIGATION IN THE TRUCKEE BASIN. There has been no court adjudication of rights to use water from the Truckee River. The stream has not been and is not now over appropriated. There is at all seasons of the year sufficient water in the river to serve all the users of water except during years of extreme scarcity. The right instituted by the United States Government to divert 1,400 sec. feet to serve the farmers under the Truckee-Carson project would, if consumated and exercised, exhaust all the surplus water of the river during the latter part of the irrigation season. Up to this time, however, comparatively little water has been taken out of the Truckee River into this canal and no user of water on the Truckee River has, up to this time, known what it was to want for water for irrigation. The four cases thus far tried have been damage suits for reasons other than wrongful diversion. The rights on Steamboat Creek, a tributary of the Truckee, have been partially adjudicated twice, and the waters of Ophir Creek and Mill Station Creek, two small mountain streams in Washoe Valley, have been apportioned by the Superior Court. The decrees in the last mentioned cases are in general based upon the doctrine of beneficial use. The use of water for stock and domestic purposes is assumed by the court to be a preferred right in the case of Anthers vs. Bryant on Mill Station Creek. In the case of Reno Smelting, Milling and Reduction Works vs. C. C. Stevenson et al., the Supreme Court states its attitude in regard to the matter of Riparian Rights. The opinion in this case gives positive assurance that the doctrine of prior appropriation and not that of riparian. ownership is the ruling principle with the Supreme Court of Nevada. Abstracts are given below of the more important cases of litigation that have, up to this time, arisen over the use of water on the Truckee River or its tributaries. Wm. D. Hardin vs. R. S. Gammons et al. In the complaint filed August 14, 1877, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered damages due to the wrongful diversion of the waters of Steamboat Creek in July, 1877. He claimed that 200 inches of water had been used continuously on his land since June, 1860, 125 inches from the Cameron Garden ditch and 75 inches from the Hughes and Cameron ditch, in which the plaintiff had a one-third interest. Judgment was asked for the ownership of the 200 inches claimed and for a perpetual injunction protecting the plaintiff in his right. In the several answers and cross bills introduced by the thirteen defendants pleas of better rights were based upon prior appropriations, riparian ownership and prescription. In the decree filed September 10, 1877, a general adjudication based upon ownership by "appropriation and use" was made. The plaintiff was granted 125 tion, riparian ownership and prescription. In the decree filed Sepone-third interest in the Hughes and Cameron ditch. The interests of the defendants were involved in different ditches, for which rights were decreed in the following order: 1. Gammon's Garden ditch... 2. Meadow ditch 3. Winter's ditch 75 inches 200 inches 40 inches 4. Big ditch 5. Bailey's Ditch . amount not stated ..200 inches The rights to the last three were adjudged to be of equal priority. The plaintiff was allowed costs to be recovered from ten of the defendants and Defendants Gammon and Roussel were allowed costs from other defendants. John Wright vs. E. Crane et al. This was the second case to arise from the alleged wrongful diversion of the waters of Steamboat Creek. The complaint was filed January 17, 1900. The plaintiff and defendants possessed farms near the lower end of the creek. The rights of but seven ditches had been adjudicated in the case of Hardin vs. Gammons in 1877. Filings were made in 1889 for fifteen ditches diverting water from Steamboat Creek, the total amount claimed being 4,027.5 inches, or 80.55 sec. feet. Two filings have been made since 1889-one for all the unappropriated waters of Steamboat Creek, and the second for 1,500 inches of the surplus waters. The findings of the Court were: (1) In March, 1862, John Wright, plaintiff, appropriated 200 inches of the waters of Steamboat Creek and now is entitled to possession and use of that amount, subject to the right of defendants as hereinafter set forth; (2) Defendant B. G. Clow appropriated 200 inches in 1859 and is now entitled to said amount; (3) Defendant E. Crane appropriated 125 inches in September, 1861, and later conveyed a portion to Defendants E. O. Crane, A. H. Stiles and A. H. Howard, and they are now entitled to said amount. A decree was entered in accordance with the above findings on February 13, 1901, and the defendants were given judgment for their costs. The total amount allowed by the Court findings to plaintiff and defendants was 525 inches, or 10 1-2 sec. feet. The average flow of Steamboat Creek during the months of July and August of an average year is probably not far from 10 sec. feet, and it is a manifest absurdity to allow a claimant to attempt to initiate a right for any such amount as 1,500 inches on this stream. Mrs. C. I. Candler et al. vs. Washoe Lake Reservoir In the complaint filed October 2, 1902, plaintiff's claimed that their crops were lost in 1902 through the failure of the Reservoir Company to supply water contracted for, and asked judgment for $2,000 damages. The decree awarded the plaintiffs damages amounting to $675.13 with interest at 7 per cent. and costs amounting to $120.95. S. C. Fogus vs. Reno Electric Light Company. A suit was begun on July 12, 1888, by S. C. Fogus, the owner of a flour mill on the Truckee River in the town of Reno, to obtain an injunction restraining the Electric Light Company from maintaining a dam in the Truckee River immediately below plaintiff's tail race. The plaintiff claimed that the backwater thus caused in the tail race lessened the power obtained from his turbine wheels. The plaintiff does not appear to have made good his point for judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants on September 12, 1888, and they were allowed their costs taxed at $94.55. James Anthers vs. Eliz. Bryant et al. This suit arose from the alleged wrongful diversion of the water of Mill Station Creek at the upper end of Washoe Valley. The complaint was filed June 8, 1893, and on February 27, 1894, the Court held that the defendants for a period of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this action used adversely to the plaintiff and all others the water flowing from Mill Station Creek through a flume or ditch to the house of defendants and thence across the road to the orchard of defendants," and "that the answer of defendants alleging a prescriptive title is sufficient, no objection having been made. to the proof of prescription when offered by defendants." A decree was entered in accordance with the judgment. Supplemental findings were submitted by the attorneys for the plaintiff and accepted by the presiding judge, which stated that the plaintiff had openly objected to and had forbidden use of water by defendants. A motion for a new trial was denied June 21, 1894. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court, where judgment was rendered December 13, 1894, reversing the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the original and supplementary findings were contradictory. The result of the new trial was that the presiding judge decreed all of the waters of Mill Station Creek to the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to pay plaintiff his costs taxed at $121.45. The defendants were, however, allowed sufficient water for stock and household purposes. M. Shields vs. Orr Extension Ditch Company. The plaintiffs in this case claimed to have been damaged by water escaping from the Orr ditch and flowing upon his cultivated lands. The complaint was filed March 17, 1896, and in it the plaintiff asked judgment for $1,000 damages, the costs of the suit, and a perpetual injunction protecting him from further damage. The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff, but allowed damages only to the extent of $50.36. The Court adopted the verdict. of the jury, and in addition ordered the defendant company to pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit, taxed at $192.85. The Court also |