24 



as the rights on its tributaries have been defined in separate pro- 

 ceedino;s. 



The expense of an adjudication to a claimant is very small, outside 

 of the $1.75 fees, which must be paid to the superintendent when 

 testimony is submitted. The cost of pubHshino; notices is paid by 

 the county in which the adjudication takes place, and the State 

 pays ft)r the surveys. The only expense to the claimant is the time 

 it takes to make out his proof with the help of the superintendent, 

 examine the proofs submitted by others, and present testimony in 

 case of contest. The last might of course be expensive. 



ACQUIREMENT OF RIGHTS. 



As was stated, the Wyoming system of acquiring rights was at the 

 time of its adoption entirely new to American irrigation law, although 

 its general features are common to European countries. It is based 

 on the theory that the State is the owner of the water and grants 

 and controls rights to its use, instead of supervising the acquirement 

 and regulating the enjoyment of rights to a pubUc property. The 

 supreme court of the State has, however, held that the latter is the 

 correct theory (see p. 19). ThisMistinction has so far made no differ- 

 ence, but questions may arise in the future when it will. 



The person wishing to acquire the right to use water must before 

 beginning construction make application to the State engineer and 

 receive a permit from him. The engineer has authority to refuse 

 an apphcation when there is no unappropriated water in the source 

 of supply or when its granthig would be contrary to public policy, 

 and since 1895 the engineer is empowered to require the applicant 

 to show his financial ability to carry out the proposed work. The 

 time within which the appro])riation must be completed is fixed by 

 the engineer, and on or before the expiration of this time the appli- 

 cant must submit proof of having carried out the provisions of the 

 permit. On receiving satisfactory proof that this has been done, 

 the board of control issues a certificate of appropriation (see p. 22). 

 If the appropriation is completed in accordance with the permit, 

 the right dates back to the time of making the application. 



The efiect of this change from the old system of unrestricted filing 

 of claims is stated in the first report of the State engineer as follows : 



The superiority of tins method of procedure over the former method of recording claims 

 has been marked. Tlie prehminary examination prevents the records heme cumbered by 

 incomplete or imperfect statements. Although a blank on which to make this application 

 is furnished by the office, nearly one-half of those received have to be returned for correc- 

 tions. The rejection ol excessive claims or their dimumtion, by the engineer, has been a 

 most elective educator and has forestalled numerous neighborhood controversies which 

 were certain to arise under the unrestricted diversion heietofore permitted. So long as 

 there was no examination of the statement filed, appropriators of a small volume of water 

 would record claims to the entire stream, under the belief that they secured the right to the 



