46-255. Ditches; construction through private property; bridges and gates.
Any person, constructing a ditch or canal through the lands of another, having no interest in such ditch or canal, shall build such ditch or canal in a substantial manner so as to prevent damage to such land. In all cases where necessary for the free and convenient use of lands on both sides of the ditch or canal by the owner or owners of such lands, the owner or those in control of such ditch shall erect substantial and convenient bridges across such canal or ditch, and they shall erect and keep in order suitable gates at the point of entrance and exit of such ditch through any enclosed field.
Source
Annotations
Mandamus is proper remedy to compel construction of bridge over canal where title to the canal remains in the United States, but the canal is controlled by the defendant. Nuss v. Pathfinder Irr. Dist., 214 Neb. 888, 336 N.W.2d 584 (1983).
Mandamus is proper remedy to compel construction of bridges over irrigation canal. Crawford v. Central Nebraska P. P. & I. Dist., 154 Neb. 832, 49 N.W.2d 682 (1951).
Mandamus will lie in county where land is located to compel public power and irrigation district to construct bridge across one of its canals. State ex rel. Johnson v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irr. Dist., 140 Neb. 471, 300 N.W. 379 (1941).
Mandamus lies to compel owner of irrigation canal to erect bridge across canal whenever necessary for free and convenient use by owner of lands on both sides. State ex rel. Strever v. Dawson County Irr. Co., 102 Neb. 67, 165 N.W. 882 (1917).
Section applies whether owner owned property at time ditch or canal was built or subsequently acquired same by purchase. State ex rel. O'Shea v. Farmers Irr. Dist., 98 Neb. 239, 152 N.W. 372 (1915), affirmed by Farmers Irr. Dist. v. O'Shea, 244 U.S. 325 (1917).
Injunction is proper remedy for preventing one, without authority, from crossing canal with lateral for purpose of carrying water from another canal to his land. Castle Rock Irr. Canal & Water Power Co. v. Jurisch, 67 Neb. 377, 93 N.W. 690 (1903); Park v. Ackerman, 60 Neb. 405, 83 N.W. 173 (1900).