79 



not operate beyond its boundaries, and it is doubtful whether any remedy in 

 case of injury to his ri^lits is ()i)eu to such an appropriator other tliau those 

 obtainable through the n)edium of the courts. 



To avoid such litigation within its own limits each of those States 

 has provided an administrative system, with ollicials to distribute 

 water to the ditch owners according to their rights as determined by 

 the courts or the boards of the States. 



If the flow of a stream were constant a ditch in an upper State 

 might be permanently closed by injunction, and the single suit would 

 serve to protect the rights of the lower appropriator; but the flow 

 of the stream varies from day to day, so that the diversion by the 

 upper ditch might one day injure a lower appropriator and another 

 day leave sufficient water in the stream to satisfy his rights, and his 

 right is only to have a certain volume of water flow down to him. 

 Under such circumstances, in the absence of any official whose duty 

 it is to regulate head gates, it would be necessary for the lower appro- 

 priator to resort to the court every lime his right was infringed, and 

 fi multiplicity of suits would result. Therefore, protection of the 

 rights of the lower appropriator in the courts of the upper State, 

 while adequate, is not satisfactory, and there is need for some system 

 similar to the administrative systems adopted by each of the three 

 States, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. In Colorado the com- 

 mon practice is for the superintendent of a water division to order 

 the commissioner of an upper district to close the ditches whose rights 

 are later than those in a lower district which are not receiving their 

 full supply. This entails no expense, and the only formality re- 

 quired is to notify the superintendent of the shortage of water in the 

 lower district. Under a similar system with interstate powers, the 

 official having general charge of the distribution of water would have 

 a complete table of priorities for the several States, and when noti- 

 fied by the lower ditch owners that they were not receiving their fidl 

 supply of water would order closed later ditches in the upper State. 

 This can be provided for in several ways. It has been proposed that 

 the General Government appoint, under proper legislation, an inter- 

 .■;tate irrigation commission, to which all interstate questions shall be 

 referred. This proposed commission is not to supersede State offi- 

 cials, but to issue orders to the State engineers to turn down niter- 

 state streams the water which belongs to parties in a lower State, 

 iust as in Colorado a division engineer orders the water commis- 

 sioner of one district to turn water down to a lower district. It is 

 also proposed that a similar commission be provided for by compact 

 between the interested States. 

 30437— No. 157—05 M 6 



