115 



(2) That this tends to aug'nient tlie vahio of early rifrhts to the 

 injury of hiter ones. 



(3) That the separation of rights from the phice of original use 

 renders it difficult to correct excess decrees. 



(4) That the rights on some tributaries approach more nearly 

 actual original uses than thev do on others, hence a tabulation of the 

 appropriations now vested in accordance Avith their priorities would 

 not serve as an impartial standard for the division of water between 

 States. 



(5) That the limitations on property rights in the water of the 

 river should be brought into an agreement, as a preliminary step to 

 the division of water across State lines. 



Leaving interstate questions out of account, what limitations should 

 be imposed on appropriations? AATiat is required to do justice to the 

 appropriator and at the same time safeguard the rights of the public? 

 In considering these questions we should remember that this water 

 falls chiefly on public land: that by law it belongs to the public. 

 In one of his messages to Congress President Roosevelt stated that 

 the giving aAvay in perpetuity of this property or of rights which 

 control this property to other than actual users is open to all of the 

 objections which apply to the granting of free and perpetual fran- 

 chises to the public utilities of cities. There are oljjections to recog- 

 nizing personal oAvnership in streams even if those rights are paid 

 for, but under the liberal laws of Colorado and AVyoming not only 

 is the appropriation secured without compensation, but the admin- 

 istration of the stream necessary to give these rights value is paid 

 for by public taxation. In each of these States the rivers are gauged 

 and the head gates regulated by public officers. The man whose in- 

 terest in the stream has been given away pays for this service alike 

 Avith the man Avho has been given that interest. 



If the appropriation of water for a farm is attached to that farm 

 and the right ceases Avith the cultivation of that farm, then the pro- 

 tection of that right by public officials is justified because men are 

 therel)y encouraged to settle on desert lands and make them produc- 

 tiA-e. Furthermore, this right is not always perpetual. Whenever 

 the cultivation of that land ceases the Avater reverts again to the 

 public. But there Avill be no rcA-ersion, no abandonment of rights, if 

 these rights can be rented or sold. 



If the separate oAvnership of Avater and land is to be recognized, 

 it would be better and safer to treat appropriations like franchises— 

 instead of giving perpetual rights, give rights for a long period of 

 time. There Avould be no ol)jection to permitting canals to appro- 

 priate a certain number of cubic feet of Avater per second and per- 

 mitting the oAvners of these canals to dispose of that water by rental 

 or contract, if these appropriations Avere licenses and limited m time. 



