| Show PROf lAo ON WATER He Says the Water Should Inhere in the Land I SHOULD NOT PERSONALTY he Streams Should be Placed UnderState Under-State Control and Some Simpler Cheaper Plan of Establishing Bights Than a Resort to the Courts Should be AdoptedIrrigation I L Laws of Other Countries Considered Weber and Davis County Irrigators Irriga-tors in Session at Ogden I i I I 1 f The meeting of the Weber and Davis County Irrigation association held at 1 the courthouse in Ogden yesterday afternoon I u af-ternoon was oi an Interesting qharac I tter About 100 representative farmers were present The principal feature of I G the meeting = was the excellent address I 1 of Prof E Mend the famous Irrigation i expert and director of the Government experimental stations The address was scholarlY and exhaustive and received tj re-ceived the closest attention the audience h au-dience Every farmer In Weber county would have been benefited by hearing Jt A more general and widespread Interest In-terest In this subJect cannot but tend I to the Improvement of our statutes governing gov-erning water rights PROF MEADS ADDRESS 1 Prof Mead said In part I Before development proceeds much farther there should be some agreement D regarding the nature of a water right I The ownership of streams apart from I land where used cannot be permitted I without creating Institutions essentially feudal In character Every one famil w j iar with the subject knows that whoever 4 who-ever controls the streams controls the i prosperity those who depend on Its use yet In disregard of that factrlghts are being created which make of streams personal property and permit the owners of this property to levy an 5 almost unrestricted tribute on those who mubU have It In order to live These rights to a certain extent have their ri sanction MI legislation and are being h sustained by court decisions Not only t Is this true but they are being sustained sus-tained by public sentiment either I through an Indifference to Ute issues involved or a failure to appreciate their importance A land system which would I have for Its object the transfer of all i public lands to a few owners and making 1 ma-king the people who dwell on this land I the perpetual tenants of these owners ould not hope to command popular approval ap-proval But similar conditions are being l be-ing recognized with reference to the public water without their manifest injustice 4 in-justice or injurious influence on future i development being recognized or if recognized rec-ognized without their being opposed I can best explain the existing state of public sentiment by giving some examples ex-amples of Its operation RIGHT OF USE ONLY It is my belief that no right to water should be recognized except the right I 1 Of use and that rights for irrigation tthould not oolong to either Individuals or canals but Inhere In the land 1 Irrigated I Irri-gated and be Inseparable from It I believe I 0 lieve this because to make water personal I per-sonal property will sooner or later lead t to the formation of water monopolies 1 Any natural monopoly like this Is indefensible 1 inde-fensible and dangerous Monopolies of water are no exception to this rule Every large city which does not own its own waterworks wishes it did S Everyone familiar with Irrigation knows that if a canal company owns the stream the farmers that It supplies I I are as a rule discontented If on the other hand rights to water wa-ter shall be made to go with land every existing user of streams will be secure in his title to all the water he needs and protected against the acquirement ac-quirement of speculative or extravagant rights by others The ownership of streams will be divided like the ownership of land among a multitude of proprietors Ditches and canals will be like the streets of a town an indispensable convenience con-venience for the conveyance of this commodity and the owners of canals will be protected In their rights as carriers car-riers Such a system works no injury to anyone Monopolies of water arc rendered Impossible and no other abuses are fostered by IL If water is made public property and streams are placed under State control S con-trol some simpler cheaper plan of establishing es-tablishing rights than a resort to the courts should be adopted No candid mind can review the icsulto of court adjudications during the past quarter of century without realizing that It has been a continuous complete and expensive failure In the past and Is wholly unsuited to the greater complications S compli-cations of the future If on the other hand rights to water can be determined deter-mined by some special tribunal created especially for this purpose just as the general Land olllce with Its registers S and receivers have charge of the management S man-agement and disposal I of pubjtc lands S the establishment Qf a water Irlght would mean Its final settlement be catiBU It would then become a part of 5 the dutv of the Government to protect that rlrh S I OTHER EXPERIENCE In dealing with this new and complex com-plex problem we have much to learn from the wlBdom and experience of other lands In framing laws wo ought to avail ourselves of all tho Informa tip pomilC In tins respect wo are fomintttoly situated Canada and the S provinces of Australia are countries whecc the climatic conditions tiro very j like our own In each of these irrigation S irriga-tion lo as new as It Is with us Their people are descendants of EnglLah colonists and like oursclvefc have derived de-rived many of their laws and customs from that country Each < of these I Rtatea has Its own Irrigation system S and a code of water laws which differ from each other in minor details asS as-S they all differ from us In one Important S essential Litigation over water rights Is an conspicuous by its absence lii f S each of these countries as It is unplea cant by its prt > scnce with us Water rights In Canada are as definite as are land titles with us The dlffCrencoJ twqon their irrigation system and ours explains why this Is flo If they have by greater wisdom or more careful S study found out a better method of dealing with these questions then vanity S vani-ty or selfish interests ought not to prevent pre-vent out recognizing thiN fact The ostrich who puts hiM head In the Band as a means of hiding his huge body Is wise compared to the Irrigators 9f thl country If they continue to adhere to policies which other lands have discarded dis-carded Before discussing tho system which we should adopt I wish therefore there-fore to present some of the distinctive feftturcs of the irrigation codes of these countries In order to compare them with the doctrines and methods jvhich now prevail with UK S VICTORIAS LAWS j We will first consider the irrigation I I lws of the province of Victoria because be-cause they wore the first to be enacted The climate of this province Is very likeS I like-S the climate of portions of Utah ami California Irrigation Is therefore a necessity to agriculture and an irrigation I S irriga-tion law a normally to peaceful and 6 prosperous agricultural development Realizing this before attempting any legislation on this question a commission commis-sion spent two years studying thom tho-m thod9 of the United States and the leading irrigation countries of the Old World On the return of this commission commis-sion a report was prepared which was made the basis of the law enacted in 1SSGOne of the passages of this report re-port reads as follows State control of streams Is imperatively impera-tively necessary and for the protection of Its citizens no monopoly can be permitted which would separate property prop-erty In water from property in the and to which It is applied IN NKW SOUTH WALES I The Irrigation laws of New South Walqs < were passed In lS9GThe commission com-mission which framed this law made a careful study of home conditions availed itself of the ten years expeii ence In the neighboring province oC Victoria and visited I a number of foreign for-eign countries The law when drafted was accompanied by an elaborate report re-port giving the reasons for the policies adopted This law makes the water of all streams Stale property In the enumeration of public waters they in cliide every river stream creek watercourse water-course lake swamp lagoon or other collection of still water whether It Is permanent or Intermittent There are certain rights to the use of this water which are recognized as being possessed pos-sessed by every one Every owner or occupier of land bordei Ing on lakes or rivers are given the right to use water for domestic purposes or watering stock in an aniount not to exceed 2000 gallons a day They are gjvcn a right to the use of water for Irrigating gardens gar-dens not to exceed five acres In extent but this right Is i only recognized where the garden is attached to a dwelling house Outside of these rights for which no filings of any kind are required re-quired any person who wishes to use the water of a rIver has to apply to the Minister of Water Supply for a license Before these licenses ate granted notice no-tice is given by publication In an official offi-cial gazette so that every one can know of the additional right sought to established and to protest if it will Interfere wjth an existing one No perpetual rights to water are granted Every license Is limited to a period of ten years The law provides for the renewal of these licenses at tho end of the ten years period if it cane can-e shown that the party applying and using the water still has need for It The report of the commission has a I double interest to us from the fact that it discusses the merits and defects of our system and enables us to see ourselves our-selves as we are seen by others In the argument In favor State ownership owner-ship Is the following statement The section declaring for State ownership own-ership of streams is the most Important Import-ant In the bill and must be accepted as the basis of legislation Jn Califojnla and Colorado the future fu-ture prospects of remunerative Irrigation 1 1 Irriga-tion are seriously Imperiled either by a want of a clear definition of the State rights or by neglect to maintain those rights or by pernicious legislation legisla-tion through which permanent right to rivers has been wholly or partially transferred to private individuals In Italy I France Spain and Indla questions ques-tions regarding water rights and tho conservation and distribution of the water supply have been practically set at rest by successful and beneficial legislation 5 IN CANADA The Irrigation district Canada lies north oC Montana and the Dakotas The conditions there are practically the I aame as the conditions in this country and there IB no reason why a law which in successful there will not operate with equal Justice and efficiency with us Prior to the passage of the present Canadian code a commissioner was sent to this country to study our experience ex-perience lie visited the States of Washington California Utah and Colorado Col-orado and afterward had a long correspondence corre-spondence with the State Engineer Wyoming regarding the success of the Wyoming system As lie result of his experience in this country his report recommended that the first Htep In Irrigation Irri-gation development should ho State control of streams and to be founded on following principles 1st The total suppression of all riparian rights In water BO that tho same being vested In the Crown maybe may-be distributed under wellconsidered government control for the benefit of the greatest possible number S 2nd That having taken away this Individual right the government Is In duty bound to exercise that control of Its distribution and use which while encouraging the Investment of capital In the works necessary for Its distribution distribu-tion will protect the Individual and re Hull Jn the greatest amount of public good 3rd That water owing to Its use In Irrigation having become a commodity with a defined monetary value its sale transfer and use shall be hedged about with the same safeguards that are on acted regarding real estate or personal property S Under the Canadian law water Is treated as public property and managed man-aged by the same department as public land Streams are being gauged Just LS we divide land Into sections and quarter sections to locate it And provide pro-vide for Its disposal and tho maximum maxi-mum and minimum How determined as rapidly afl possible Water right fllinga url made Just as are land filings fil-ings and are made In the same office Parties wishing lo secure rights to water make their filing in the local Land ofilce whence It is transmitted to the sent of the general Government at Ottawa Just as we transmit such fit ings to the General Land office at I Washington The records of these water wa-ter rights as are complete as are the records of land filings As in Australia Aus-tralia there are no perpetual rights Instead there are issudd licenses giving giv-ing the right to use streams Whenever When-ever the filings amount to more than the lowwater flow of streams any further fur-ther filings except on flood waters are refused Public notice is given Call these filings in order that the holders of existing rights may have an opportunity oppor-tunity to protest if they so desire tVny one can go into the office of Irrigation Irriga-tion and Irrigation l Surveys in Canada and ascprtaln Just what lands I have rights to water Every man asking for a water right must give even the portion por-tion of the quarter section ou which the water Is to be 1 used and must also show that he has a title to the land or represents the owner of the title It Is not permitted that one party shall 1 acquire a right to water for land be longjng to some one else and rights when once granted to a tract of land i cannot separated from It Speaking of the operation of this law the Chief Inspector Surveys In his report say In some other countries particularly particu-larly the United States the title to water is entirely dependent upon the validity of the record against the stream and no definite license is granted 1 for a fixed quantity 01 water so that the owner 4ntlrely l dependent upon his ability to prove the legality of his record and the quantity water to which he Is entitled should any disputes dis-putes regarding these points arise and as a natural consequence undesirable and In many cases ruinous litigation arises and money which > should be spent in developing r water rights Is wasted in lawsuits 1 STATE OWNERSHIP I In some parts of this country State ownership of streams has bean opposed 1 from a mistaken belief that It would I unsettle vcsted rights that if State control was Instituted the early appropriators I ap-propriators would In some way be i injured I believe that those who hold these views will in time favor State control because it Is the only means by which these rights can be adequately I adequate-ly protected Jn any country where State control prevails the Issuance of I a license 1 to use water carries with it a responsibility the part of the Government Gov-ernment to protect that right If in time of scarcity some one who Is not I entitled to water takes it he Is not interfering with some other Irrigators I possession of it but he Is unlawfully taking Government property and It Is the business of the Government to prevent I pre-vent this The IrrIgator who Is not getting his proper share because of i this unlawful diversion does not have to bring an Injunction suit against his neighbor He notifies the water commissioner com-missioner It Is a system admirably adapted to prevent quarreling between neighbors If any one gets more than I his share or less than his share there Is a less expensive remedy than a lawsuit law-suit If the water commissioner Is negligent or incompetent complaint is made to the superior ofiicer Such a system Is 1 worth all it costs in lessening discord and strife Irrigators dont have to watch each other to prevent water being stolen or wasted The State as an impartial arbiter Attends to this and Irrigators can go to and from their fields with a confidence and assurance which Is not possible In any country where streams are not under public control S DESIRABLE FEATURES There are two features of these laws which should be made a part of every Irrigation law In this Country The first Is State control of streams with a I special tribunal determining rights of users of water tho second fs to limit rights to ohe place and kind of use If this Is correct it means anon an-on of court adjudications As this is a radical Innovation there should be conclusive reasons for the change I believe there are In the first place the experiment has been tried and is I a success The waters wa-ters of Wyoming are State property The rights to their use come direct from the State Certificates of appropriation appro-priation Issued by the State Board of Control are an conclusive evidence of titles to water as land patents are to public land In the ten years that the State Board of Control has had charge of streams It has determined several thousand of these rights with such Justice and efficiency that litigation is almost unknown That mistakes have been made is admitted They will occur under any system but a comparison com-parison of the boards decisions on I any stream with any of the six court adjudications made under the Territorial Terri-torial shows the infinite superiority of a special tribunal to deal with this question In times of scarcity there Is no need of injunction suits It Is cheaper and better to call on the water commissioner As a result of State control Wyoming has assumed a leadership lead-ership In Irrigation affairs wholly out of proportion to her wealth or population popula-tion |
