28 



engineer called attention to two evils resulting from these provisions. 

 I [^ said: 



Piirtics who have no well-dciinod idea of constructing ditches file applications for per- 

 mits simply because it costs notiiing * * * The tendency of recording speculative 

 lilino's is onlv one of tlie evils. The more aggravating one is I lie car.'lessness willi wliidi 

 many of the statements are pn^pared. 



The same report shows the operation of the law at that time. Four 

 hundred and sevent^^-two applications were received, to reclaim 

 1,275,30;3 acres. Plats were filed with 325 of these. Extension of 

 time for filing plats was granted in 1 cases. Sixteen applications were 

 rejected because of no unappropriated water in the source of supply, 

 26 were canceled for failure to file plats or because of notice of aban- 

 donment from applicant. Before a permit is canceled two notices are 

 sent to the applicant, in order that he may have opportunity to show 

 cause why it should not be done. 



In response to recommendations of the engineer the legislature of 

 1895 provided for the payment of fees, that maps and plats of ]:>re- 

 scribed form and size be filed with the application, rather than witliin 

 six months after its ajjproval, and authorized the engineer to satisfy 

 himself as to the financial responsibility and good faith of the applicant 

 before approving an application. This resulted in a great improve- 

 ment in the character of applications and the accuracy of the maps 

 filed. 



Another safeguard recommended by the engineer in his first report 

 was the publication of notice of an application in order that those 

 whose interests might be affected by its approval might have a hearing 

 before the engineer. Tliis has not been adopted, but it is the practice 

 of the engineer to furnish statements of the applications received to the 

 newspapers of the State, so that they are usually published. This pro- 

 vision has been adopted by several of the other States. 



A question wliich early arose was whether a permit for the appropri- 

 ation of water for a given area of land is exclusive. Logically it would 

 seem that it should be. The right is supposedly attached to the partic- 

 ular tract of land described in the permit, and is limited to 1 cubic 

 foot of water per second to 70 acres. If two permits covering the same 

 land are issued, the engineer's office is in the position of havmg author- 

 ized the diversion of 2 cubic feet of water per second for a single tract 

 of 70 acres. It is true that no one can get a certificate of ap])ropriation 

 until proof of actual beneficial use is made, and consequently only one 

 right can be acquired for a given tract, but until the time for final proof 

 there would be two parties with permits to acquire a right to which 

 only one could finally receive title. On the other hand, the effect of 

 making permits exclusive, under certam circumstances, works great 

 injustice. Under the Wyoming law and practice there is no require- 

 ment that the apphcant shall own the land wliich the proposed canal is 



