50 



under this law is also subject to inspection by the State engineer. He 

 is required to measure the flow of streams, locate and survey reservoir 

 sites, and give estimates of capacity and cost. All parties wishing to 

 build dams over 10 feet high are required to have their plans approved 

 by the engineer, and he is also required to inspect existing dams over 

 20 feet high. 



Since 1901 irrigation district plans also have been subject to the 

 approval of the State engineer. The maps, estimates, and descrip- 

 tions of proposed districts are submitted to the engineer sixty days 

 before the hearings on the organization of the districts before the 

 county commissioners. The engineer examines the plans and in some 

 cases goes over the ground and reports to the county commissioners. 

 If the engineer reports adversely, the matter is dropped, except that 

 the petitioners may amend their plans in such a way as to meet the 

 approval of the engineer. Idaho has gone further than any other 

 State in aid of irrigation districts, paying benefits assessed on State 

 lands included within the boundaries of such districts, and, on the 

 other hand, it is the only State requiring that district plans be approved 

 by any State official. 



Up to 1903 the engineer had notliing to do with the acquirement 

 of rights or the distribution of water, his duties being cliiefly making 

 general surveys of the water resources of the State and in connection 

 with the Carey Act projects and irrigation districts. In that year an 

 attempt was made to provide by law a complete system of public 

 control of the water supply of the State with the State engineer at the 

 head. 



DEFINING RIGHTS. 



The adjudication of rights was left with the courts, as it was before, 

 but provision was made for the beginning of actions for adjudication 

 of rights by water commissioners and for the making of surveys and 

 maps by the engineer on request of the court whenever any action for 

 the adjudication of water rights was brought. This law provided for 

 the bringing of actions by the commissioner on streams whose waters 

 had been partly adjudicated, but made no provision for streams 

 where the rights were entirely undefined. The provision for the bring- 

 ing of actions by the water commissioner was declared void in Bear 

 Lake v. Budge (75 Pac, 615), the court holding: 



Under the police power of the State the legislature can not authorize a pubUc officer to 

 bring a suit to settle private rights to the use of water or the priority of such rights. 



The provision for the court calling upon the engineer to make sur- 

 veys when actions are brought by private parties has, however, been 

 upheld. (Boise City Irrigation and Land Company v. Stewart, 77 Pac, 

 25. ) But tliis provision is held to be merely directory, not mandatory. 

 The engineer has therefore no necessary connection with the adjudi- 



