Ill 



pleted. The appropriation of the I.arinier County ditcli. in Colo- 

 rado, Avas dechuvd vested by the court before the ditch was c()nii)lete.d 

 and nuuiifestly before all the water had ever been used in any wav, 

 and this is only one illustration, of which numbers niiirht be given. 



The water laws of Wyoming and Nebraska were framed a'fler the 

 evils of transfers of appropriations had become manifest in Colorado. 

 In order to avert these evils the lands rather than the canals were 

 made the appropriators of water. To ac(iuire a right for irrigation 

 the land had to be actually irrigated, and the right to water, in tlie 

 certificates of appropriation issued, is attached to this land. Instead 

 of giving a right to canals to a certain number of cubic feet per sec- 

 ond, as is done in Colorado, the certificates of approi)riation in 

 Wyoming and Nebraska name the appropriator and the diverting 

 ditch, but give to the land described a right to water sufficient for its 

 irrigation, fixing, however, a maximum limit on the amount which 

 can be taken, this maximum being an arbitrary and probably an 

 unconstitutional restriction, but designed to prevent Avasteful or ex- 

 cessive use. In both States the maximum allowance is 1 cubic foot 

 per second to TO acres, which is largely in excess of ordinary necessi- 

 sities. This was proven in several instances in Wyoming, Appro- 

 priators claimed the right to take more Avater. They were notified 

 that if a measurement showed they used more this right would be 

 recognized. ^Measurements showed thev used less. 



There being no law authorizing a transfer from the land Avhere 

 acquired to other lands or to other uses, it has been held by the State 

 irrigation officials in both States thtit the right Avas restricted to 

 the place Avhere acquired, that being the sole measure of use provided 

 by laAv. The Avater laAvs of Wyoming and Nebraska are i)ractically 

 the same. The irrigation officials of both States haA'e construed these 

 laAvs as restricting rights to the place where acquired. This inter- 

 pretation Avas upheld by the supreme court of Nebraska in a decision 

 rendered in 1904." In this decision the Nebraska court referred to 

 the Wyoming statute and its resemblance to the Nebraska hnv and 

 held, in effect, that both hiAvs attached rights for irrigation to the 

 lands where acquired, a portion of the decision reading as folloAvs: 



V>y the adoption of the Irrisation law or" ISO.j, v/hich was modeled upon the 

 Wyoninii,' hnv. this State adopted the latter i)olicy. hy which the right to ns(> 

 the water shall not he granted separate from the land to whic-h it is to be 

 applied, and that the right to use the water should attach to the land, and when 

 the land is sold be sold with it. 



The Wyoming State irrigation iaAv Avas passed in ISOO, cai'rying 

 into eifect the constitutional declaration Avhich conferred on the 

 State board of control authority to deal Avith the appropriation of 



"Farmers' Irrrigatlon District r. I'^rank, 100 N. W., 280. 

 304:^,7— No. 157—05 m 8 



