## Facts

- Walnut Irrigation District was a public corporation organized under the Wright Act and a 1897 supplementary act governing irrigation districts.
- A 1897 provision required district waters distributed for irrigation to be apportioned ratably to each landowner based on the owner’s last district assessment relative to total district assessments, and allowed assignment of the apportioned right.
- J. E. Jenison owned 38 acres within the district (assessed at $4,100) and held an assignment of another landowner’s water right tied to 30 district acres (assessed at $3,000); total assessed value in the district was $94,450.
- Based on assessments, Jenison’s combined entitlement was a fixed fraction of district water distributed for irrigation.
- Jenison also owned land outside the district, planted in crops, and sought to use part of his district water share to irrigate those outside lands.
- The directors did not deny Jenison water for his land within the district but refused to provide water for the purpose of transporting it beyond district boundaries for irrigation outside the district.
- Jenison sued the directors for damages, alleging crop loss from the refusal to deliver his share for use on outside lands; the trial court entered judgment for the directors and denied a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether an irrigation district landowner, given his proper ratable apportionment for use on district lands, has a right to demand delivery of any portion of that apportionment for irrigating lands outside the district.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment for the directors and the order denying a new trial.
- The court held the statutory apportionment right is limited to irrigation of lands within the district, and directors have no legal duty to supply district water for use on non-district lands.
- Because Jenison was not denied water for in-district land and had no right to compel delivery for outside use, the directors committed no actionable wrong.

## Legal Principles

- Irrigation district water apportionment rights are statutory and measured by the landowner’s assessment within the district relative to total district assessments.
- An irrigation district’s obligations and the benefits of its water supply are territorially tied to lands within district boundaries that bear district assessments.
- Statutory authorization to assign an apportioned water right does not create a location-free right to export district water for irrigation outside the district absent clear legislative permission.
- When directors make water available for lawful in-district use, refusal to deliver water solely for export and use on outside lands does not support damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that district water must be distributed for irrigation of lands within the irrigation district, and a landowner cannot compel directors to deliver district water for use on lands outside the district; therefore, the directors were not liable in damages for refusing such delivery.


Jenison v. Redfield, 149 Cal. 500, 87 P. 62 (Cal. 1906)