Cordua Irrigation Dist. v. Hallwood Irrigation Dist.
Apellant and respondent share an irrigation canal; a dispute arose over how much each should pay for a fish screen in the canal. This case returns to this court following remand for a trial to determine the reasonable cost of modification of the fish screen and resolution of two other pending cases between the parties. Appellant appeals, raising two contentions. First, it contends the trial court erred in determining the reasonable cost; it argues the court erred in accepting the estimate prepared before the work was done rather than the estimates made afterwards. It also contends the estimate the court accepted failed to account for the substantial excavation and concrete work required. Second, appellant contends the trial court erred in awarding respondent one-half of the proceeds from a contract appellant has with Ramirez Water District for delivery of irrigation water.
Court modified the judgment. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of the reasonable cost. The trial court erred, however, in awarding respondent half of the proceeds from the Ramirez contract. The judgment is modified to delete the award of $133,776.55 to respondent.
Comments on Cordua Irrigation Dist. v. Hallwood Irrigation Dist.