OCR Text |
Show OREGON SYSTEM , IRRIGATION LAW A system of irrigation legislation modeled upon that now in use in Oregon and Wyoming will be urged bv Caleb Tanner, state engineer, upon up-on the present legislature Mr Tan-i Tan-i nor has Just returned from Oregon. ! where he has been studying the workings of the system in use In that state. The Wyoming law.' says Mr Tanner, Tan-ner, "is perhaps the most perfect In the west It was suggested several ears ago for adoption in Utah, but I'tah solons balked saying that, while Wyoming had a fine law. it was adaptlblo mostly to a state that had only recently established irrigation, and not to a state like i:tah where water tangle8 were hoary with antiquity. an-tiquity. "For this reason I have turned to Oregon Oregon's irrigation svstems are as old as ours Therefore, If the Oregon law worked, it ought to work In Utah. I found that Oregon had adopted most or the Wyoming law, and that it worked Therefore If should do In Utah and 1 am going to advocate It as Btronglv as possible for use lu thlg state. We must get some way for untangling our water I mixups. It has been said that south-em south-em California has spent more on lltl Kahon over water rights than the cost j of the original works. We do not I want such a condition in I tah, yet we are getting there." The Oregon idea, concisely, Is as f lollowa: Walter Public Property. All water within the state declared' I to be the property of the public It I Is the puipose of the water law to I regulate the use of this property In I the interest of the public without In-Jury In-Jury to prior vested rights. This, regulation is possible under ihe police po-lice power of the "tale A board of which (lie state engi- i neer Is chairman. Is created to have j charge or this property. It Is the i duty or this board 1. To ascertain j and record all rlghta to the use or 1 this public property which had become be-come vested prior to the adoption of : the law. 2. To grant rights for beneficial use of the state's unappropriated unappro-priated waters to those making proper prop-er application therefore, and, To ; protect recorded rights to the use of public waters by regulatlnq diversions , from streams. The second equation is now m operation op-eration in Utah. but. a8 has been ! pointed out by the stac engineer in j his report to the governor, Utah h is some Idea of her water sources: but has no data on who has taken up portions of it. A settler, coming into the state, may be told that a certain stream has a thousand seonri-reet of water, but cannot be told whether the water is taken up or not Rights are granted to applicants by the State bu their proportion or tho available water supply Is unknown Takes Work From Court. The adjudication or water rights In Oregon Is left to the water board, which is given the same power to de. clde cases that the register and re-j reiver of the federal land office h:is The water cases most or them, are I thus taken out of the courts. Treeing tho court calendar and leaving the decision to engineers Tho courts can be used on appeal ir desired; but even with the average number of appeals, the court, cases would be considerably lessened Tho board gives a water-right f Cr-tiricuto Cr-tiricuto that Roes with the land. Ajl water matters being tabulated, de. elded and supervised under one system, sys-tem, it is believed by the state engineer engi-neer that the clearing of the massor litigation that now clutters Utah courts will be begun with the adoption adop-tion or the Oregon law. |