87 



tipplyino: to the State board of irriofation, biiilclinof a ditch, and 

 using Avater. and the hohler has a right to sufficient water to ii'i'igate 

 liis land, not to exceed 1 cubic foot per second for TO acres. This 

 right attaches to the hind for which the application was made and 

 aj^i^roved by the board, and the water can be used on no other land. 

 The right, therefore, belongs to the land, not to the individual, and 

 can not be disposed of apart from the land. The right is to suffi- 

 cient water for the particular tract, within the limit of 1 cubic foot 

 per second for 70 acres, and not to a fixed (piantity. If the full 

 quantity is not needed for this land it remains in the stream and goes 

 to supply later rights, instead of being sold by the holder of the 

 earlier right. 



From the foregoing statement it appears that in each of the States 

 in which the Platte rivers extend' rights have been acquired by 

 appropriation: that water must be put to a beneficial use; that 

 among appropriators the first in time is the first in right; and that 

 in Colorado and AVyoming rights may be transferred from one tract 

 of land to another, if others are not injured by the transfer. 



ACQUIREMENT OF RIGHTS BY APPROPRIATION. 



The right to appropriate water from streams is usually considered 

 in its opposition to the common-law doctrine of riparian rights. 

 But the doctrine of riparian rights is so manifestly unsuited to the 

 conditions of the arid region and the diversion of water from streams 

 is so essential to any considerable development of that region that 

 it is not considered necessary to discuss appropriation in that light. 

 Assuming that the water must be diverted from the streams in order 

 that the country may be developed, and that its diversion is, there- 

 fore, justifiable, two systems of acquiring rights are possible — appro- 

 priation and grant or license. 



A system of grant or license requires that the water belong to the 

 public, as it does, and that the State or nation allow its use only on 

 the receipt of a grant from the authority controlling it. The most 

 evident advantage of such a system is that there is always a complete 

 record of rights and that rights will always be well defined, since 

 they will be limited by the terms of the grants. On the other hand, 

 the most evident disadvantage of a system of approi)riati()n is that 

 there is no complete record of rights and the nature and limitations 

 of rights are not defined. This has been the greatest evil of this sys- 

 tem in its operation in the arid section of the United States. Canals 

 Avere built and water used without any record of what was done. 

 This process went on until there was not Avater enough for all. The 

 principle of priority was generally recognized, but there were no 

 records to show whose rights were prior, and where this was well 



