105 



these appropriations in the easiest and cheapest way and to secure 

 the hirgest possible amount. Practically, every ai)pro})riator would 

 prefer absolute ownership. Where this is not possible they seek the 

 nearest equivalent. So far as the general public is concerned, it is 

 inditferent. Every perpetual right to water acquired means a lessen- 

 ing of water for future appropriators, and every excess right allowed 

 is a surrender of a birthright of future generations; but this fact does 

 not awaken any protest against prodigal generosity either in the 

 establishment of rights or in extending the privileges which accom- 

 pany these rights. "Let the future take care of itself" is the i)re- 

 vailing sentiment. This sentiment is not peculiar to the West. The 

 East has given away streets; the AVest, rivers. Irrigation officials 

 have struggled against this. The reports of the engineers in each 

 cf these States have been filled with protests against this mistaken 

 liberality and warnings against the dangers of personal or speculative 

 ownership of streams. The most serious obstacle in Colorado to a 

 proper limitation of rights for irrigation has been the provision of 

 the law which gives appropriations to ditches and requires decrees 

 to state the carrying capacity of ditches. This, as is explained later 

 on, is not a determination of actual beneficial use, but of what has 

 been taken as a convenient substitute. 



The laws of these three States all require that water must be bene- 

 ficially used before a right to it can be established. No State can sell 

 a share in a stream, nor can it give it away to anyone else but a user. 

 The first user has the first right and the priorities of subsequent users 

 are fixed by the time of original use. The rights of later appropri- 

 ators are subject to the earlier ones. If there is not water enough in 

 the stream for all the last appropriator has to do without, and the 

 early rights are the last to be interfered Avith. The priority of an 

 appropriation is, therefore, a controlling factor in determining its 

 value. Early rights are far more valuable than later ones. 



In the arid West there is more land suited to irrigation than there 

 is water to irrigate it. Control of the water means, therefore, control 

 of land valuesT The danger of water monopoly will be lessened if 

 the ownership of the land and the right to water are united in the 

 same person. This gives to the farmer control of both elements of 

 production and conduces to the security and confidence with which 

 he carries on his work. The history of all irrigated countries shows 

 that making the Avater of streams a form of property apart from 

 land leads in time to their speculative ownership and to water-right 

 charges which are a severe tax on agricultural development and 

 prosperity. Speaking of this. President Roosevelt, in his first mes- 

 sage to Congress, said : " Separate ownership of land and water can 

 not prevail without causing enduring wrongs." Those provinces in 



