29 



to water; in fact, uiuior large canals they seldom do. An exclusive 

 |)erniit under such circumstances makes the owner of the land entirely 

 dependent on the holder of the permit, since he is barred from acquir- 

 ing a water right for liis own land except through the holder of the per- 

 mit. The evils of this latter situation appealed more strongly to the 

 Wyoming engineers than the logic of the former, and they have there- 

 fore never held that j)ermits were exclusive. In his second rej)ort the 

 engineer stdted his position on this matter as follows: 



The State having given a permit to use water for the irrigation of certain hinds, and fixing 

 a time for its completion, no other permit should be issued covering the same land until ihe 

 first shall have expired. This course has been adhered to in all cases where parties having 

 prior claims show their intention and ability to proceed without delay with the work. 

 (Second Rpt. St. Eng., p. .54.) 



In his next report the engineer, referring again to tiiis subject, says: 



In all these cases it has been the effort of the engineer to take such action as would secure 

 the most elVective reclamation of land and the Ix'st use of our water supply, and where this 

 has re(|uired the issuance of a second permit, describing the same land, then such permit has 

 been issued, but whenever the question was in doubt or where the issuance of a .second per- 

 mit tended to interfere with the carrying out of a project already under way, all such ai)pli- 

 cations have t)een rejected. (Third Rpt. St. Eng., pp. 63, 64.) 



The opposite interpretation has been given in Nebraska (see p. 45). 



While the engineer has authority to reject an application when there 

 is no unappropriated water in the source of supply mentioned in the 

 application, and this has sometimes been done, it is not the usual prac- 

 tice. There is usually some flood water, and alwaj^s the possibility of 

 an increased supply from seepage or more economical use by the hold- 

 ers of prior rights, and consequently permits are frequently granted 

 when the records of the engineer's office show little unappropriated 

 w ater. The location of the proposed diversion is taken into account in 

 such cases. If it is at the low^er end of a stream where interference 

 with prior rights is impossible the permit is granted, while if it is on the 

 upper part of a stream where there will always be the possibility of 

 interfering wdth lower prior users, the permit may be refused. Another 

 practice recently adopted is to ask the applicant to get the written con- 

 sent of the prior appropriators from the same source. When this is 

 secured the permit is granted. In all cases where the records show 

 little or no unappropriated water, that fact is stamped across the face 

 of the permit. The form of this notice is as follows : 



The records of the State engineer's office show the waters of to be largely appro- 

 priated. The appropriator under this permit is hereby notified of this fact and that the 

 issuance of this permit grants the right to divert and use the surplus or waste water of tiie 

 stream and confers no rights which will interfere with or impair the u.se of water by prior 

 appropriators. 



Since the adoption of the present system of acquiring rights a num- 

 ber of canals have been built without complying with the law regarding 

 making application to the State engineer. The status of such ditches 



