45 



it could not. The language of the law is ''if a prior appropriation has 

 been made to water the same land.'' The question on which the 

 case hinged was whether the securing of the approval of an ap})lica- 

 tion for water to irrigate a given tract of land is the " appropriation of 

 water" for that tract. The ruling of the court is to the elTect that it is. 

 In Nebraska, as in Wyoming, there is no requirement that the appli- 

 cant own the land covered by his application or that he show any 

 agreement with the owner. The effect of this ruling is, therefore, that 

 one person can secure the right to water the land of another, and the 

 latter is barred from providing his land with water in any other way. 

 The ruling in Wyoming is that a permit is not exclusive (see p. 29). 



For a few years after its organization the board held that until 

 existing rights were adjudicated it had no means of determining 

 whether there was unappropriated water in an}' stream, and there- 

 fore took no action on applications other than to receive and file them. 

 A circular letter was sent to each aj^plicant explaining the situation 

 and stating that if he were sure there was unappropriated water the 

 board would not seek to prevent his proceeding with construction and 

 that such construction should not in any way prejudice his rights. In 

 many cases canals were built under these conditions. Since the old 

 rights are very largely adjudicated, applications are now acted on 

 promptly, the work being practically kept up to date. 



The application blanks contain four township plats, and the location 

 of headworks and the line of canal must be shown on these, but regular 

 maps are not required until six months after the approval of the appli- 

 cation. When an application is received the engineer examines the 

 situation himself, or has some one else, usually one of the water officials, 

 do so, and bases his approval or disapproval on this report. One case 

 is reported where an under secretary reported that th'e plan was 

 impracticable and the application was rejected. 



The rejection of applications seems to be much more common in 

 Nebraska than in the other States. The report of the secretary for 

 1899 and 1900 states (p. 9) that in those two years 210 applications 

 were allowed and 126 dismissed. In the succeeding two years 74 

 were allowed and 17 dismissed. The right of the board to reject 

 applications has never been passed upon by the courts. In the one 

 case of appeal from the secretary this question was not passed upon. 

 This right has been denied in Utah and Idaho (see pp. 53, 69), and in 

 Wyoming is seldom exercised. 



Up to September 15, 1905, there had been 800 applications approved 

 under the law of 1895. 



Rights to store water and to appropriate water for power purposes 

 are initiated in the same way as ditch rights. There is no pro^nsion 

 for inspection to see that work is commenced within six months after 



