Utah Const. Co. v. Salmon River Canal Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Mathews, J.
On March 24, 1916, the District Court entered a decree determining the rights of appellee and the Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Company, hereinafter called plaintiffs, and the Vineyard Land & Stock Company, hereinafter called defendant, in the waters of Salmon river, sometimes called Salmon creek, and its tributaries. The decree was affirmed by this court on August 6, 1917. Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 F. 9 . Thereafter appellee acquired the rights of its coplaintiff, and appellant acquired the rights of defendant. On March 1, 1935, the District Court made an order prescribing rules for the administration and enforcement of the decree. This appeal is from that order.
The decree of March 24, 1916, adjudges and declares that defendant has a right, prior and superior to any right of plaintiffs, to divert and use annually on certain lands, some of which are in Idaho and some in Nevada, 12,500 acre feet of water, which “shall be diverted from the channel of Salmon river or Salmon creek and its tributaries through ditches, canals, or other conduits provided with suitable measuring devices for measuring the amount of water diverted…
Dissenting Opinion
Garrecht, J.
(dissenting).
The lower court should be affirmed.
Grant that the rules as formulated by the court for the guidance of those directed to administer the decree could be expressed with greater precision or in more exact legal terms, still I have no doubt that one charged with the duty of administration can take the decree and these rules and apply them in such manner that the respective parties will have the use and enjoyment of their respective water rights.
Should any question or conflict as to the meaning or intendment of any rule arise, the court on application may clarify them, jurisdiction having been retained for that purpose.