Lack of sufficient water for fish cultural purposes has led to frequent disputes. An account of another controversy over the same water supply between Heil and the Hubbells, who are also parties to the present record, is reported in the case entitled Heil v. Hubbell, 80 Colo. 452, 252 Pac. 343. The district court there adjudged Heil guilty of contempt for disobeying its injunction commanding him to desist from interfering with the Hubbell rights, and we affirmed the judgment. The land and water rights mentioned in the above opinion as belonging to one West, have since been acquired by the Warwicks.

There being no definite procedure established by statute the court in this equitable suit had inherent power to enforce its decree in its own way. (See Maloney v. Zipf, 41 Idaho 30, 237 Pac. 632; State v. Superior Court, 101 Wn. 260, 172 Pac. 254.) Retaining jurisdiction of the cause for two years and the administrative provisions of the decree objected to by appellants were all framed for their benefit and were within the powers of a court of equity in the absence of express statutory provisions governing the matter. ( Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City Water Electrical Power Co., 24 Utah, 249, 67 Pac. 672, 61 L.R.A. 648; Salt Lake City v. Utah Salt Lake City Canal Co., 43 Utah, 519, 137 P. 638; Heil v. Hubbell, 80 Colo. 452, 252 P. 343; 21 C. J. 692; 2 Wiel on Water Rights in Western States, 3d ed., 1113.) Finally, it is urged that the decree is inconsistent in its provisions in that it awards appellants Tiegs and Ryan certain amounts of water with priorities dating March 23, 1927, and September 24, 1927, respectively, prohibits them from permitting any water to flow from their wells until further order of the court, and perpetually enjoins them from using the water awarded to them, even though neither respondent nor appellant Edwards is using all, or any part of, the water awarded to them.

In the brief of defendant's counsel he rightly recognizes our former decisions that in reviewing contempt proceedings we are confined to the inquiry, whether the trial court had jurisdiction and regularly pursued its authority. Fort v. People, 81 Colo. 420, 256 P. 325; Heil v. Hubbell, 80 Colo. 452, 252 P. 343. 2.