Groff v. Reclamation District No. 108

FINCH, P. J.

The first two of the above-entitled actions were tried together and, at the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to return verdicts in both eases in favor of the defendant. On the return of such verdicts judgments were entered thereon in favor of the defendant. The last of the three actions was tried before the court without a jury, but upon the evidence introduced in the other eases and additional evidence taken after the rendition of such verdicts. Findings and judgment went in favor of the defendant and the plaintiffs in all three actions have appealed on a single record, and the appeals have been argued together.

Plaintiff Browning is the owner of agricultural lands within the defendant district and the other plaintiffs are his tenants. In the year 1918 an irrigation canal was constructed by the defendant through Browning’s land and water has been conducted through the canal for irrigation during every season since 1919. Browning, who was a trustee of the defendant at the time the plans for the canal were adopted and had theretofore had extensive experience in reclamation work, executed deeds, after the construction of the canal, conveying to the defendant “an easement and right of way for the construction, repair, improvement and maintenance of a canal and banks, for conducting, and flowing water therein, with the right to flow and have flow water therein from whatever source and whether naturally flowing therein or artificially conducted or brought thereto, and whether drainage, seepage, rain, flood water, or water for or from irrigation, over, along and across the following tract, strip

[24]

or parcel of land.” This is followed by a particular description of the right of way. The lands involved in these actions lie adjacent to the canal.

Plaintiffs Groff sue for alleged damages to their crops during the seasons of 1923, 1924, and 1925, caused by seepage water from the canal. Plaintiff Myers sues for damages similarly caused to his crops of 1924 and 1925. They held under yearly leases executed during the years mentioned. Plaintiff Browning sues for alleged damages to the land itself, caused by the seepage, and for an injunction.

Browning testified that most of the land is “tule land; used to be tule land, and of course that'is porous soil and had high tule there, very high. . . . Allows the water to pass along it sometimes for over two miles.” Under such circumstances, heavy seepage of water from the canal must have been foreseen by all experienced persons who were familiar with the facts.