82 



first legislature adopted the common law of England so far as it was 

 " not inapplicable." The supreme court of the State has held that 

 this enactment did not establish the doctrine of riparian rights in 

 Wyoming, as that doctrine is considered inapplicable." 



With the admission of W^yoming as a State, in 1890, an entirely new 

 code of water laws was adopted. The constitution declared that all 

 unappropriated water was the proi^erty of the State, and that rights 

 to its use could be acquired by appropriation. Laws were enacted 

 Avhich limited the right of appropriation and required any party 

 washing to divert water to make application to the State engineer and 

 receive a permit before construction began. This permit is not a deed 

 to water, but merely gives the applicant the right to proceed with the 

 construction of works and the diversion of water in accordance with 

 the terms of the permit. 



None of the Territorial laws regarding water rights defined them 

 in any way. Under these laws there was no litigation and conse- 

 quently no court decisions setting forth the nature of rights to watei\ 

 The law of 1886 required the filing of statements giving the date of 

 construction, capacity of works, amount of the water claimed to be 

 appropriated, the nmnber of acres^ " lying under and being or pro- 

 posed to be irrigated " by the works. The law contains nothing 

 which would give any indication as to which of these conditions was 

 to govern the volume of the right. Only a few adjudications took 

 place under the law of 1880. The first of these was to determine the 

 rights on Bear Creek. The decree awarded definite quantities of 

 water to the parties to the adjudication, only a few of those using 

 water from the stream appearing. The court in this case apparently 

 considered that the parties had rights to definite quantities of water. 

 The decree defining rights to Crow Creek awarded to each party suf- 

 ficient water for a definite area of land, not to exceed a fixed volume. 

 No uniform rule was observed in fixing this maximum volume which 

 could be used and no ditches were named. The rights would there- 

 fore seem to have been considered as not attached to any particular 

 areas, but they did not entitle their holders to fixed quantities of water, 

 but rather to sufficient water for definite areas of land. The decree 

 defining the rights to Horse Creek is similar to that on Crow Creek, 



« The eommon-law doctriDe relating to the ritrhts of a riparhin iiroprietor in 

 the water of a natural stream and the use thereof is unsuiteil to our reiiuire- 

 ments and necessities and never obtained in Wyoming. * * * ^ different 

 principle, better adapted to the material conditions of this region, has been 

 recognized. The i)riuci])le, Iiriefly stated, is that the right to the use of water 

 for beneficial purposes depends upon a prior aitpropriation. We incline strongly 

 to the view expressed by the supreme court of Colorado to the effect that such 

 right and the obligation to protect it existed anterior to any legislation on the 

 subject. (Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo., 308.) 



