54 



value. This would seem to be a proper State function, since the indi- 

 vidual has not the means of iuA^estigating the water supply and the 

 existing rights, as has the State; but the law is at least consistent. 

 As has been shown in the previous pages, there is no provision for 

 securing a complete list of all rights to water from any stream, and 

 without such a list neither the engineer nor the applicant can tell from 

 the records whether there is unappropriated water in any stream. In 

 many cases it will of course be a matter of common knowledge that a 

 stream is or is not fully appropriated, and there may be little danger 

 of injustice so far as the applicant is concerned. The filing of applica- 

 tions, however, provides a record of the time of initiating rights, since 

 if the work is carried out in accordance with the law and the regula- 

 tions the right dates from the date of filing, and the requirement of the 

 approval of an application by the engineer before construction can 

 begin prevents the initiation of any rights without a public record. 

 The works provided for in an application must be completed witliin 

 five years, and the water must be applied to beneficial use wdthin a 

 further period of four years, but the engineer in approving an applica- 

 tion may require that the work be done in shorter periods. One-fifth 

 of the work must l)e done at the expiration of one-half of the time 

 allowed for completion of works. Works having a capacity of less 

 than 25 cubic feet per second must be begun within sixty days from 

 the approval of the application, and the holder of a permit for more 

 than 25 cubic feet per second must wdthin sixty days of the issue of the 

 permit file a bond, the amount of which is fixed by the engineer, not 

 exceeding $10,000, conditioned upon faithfully carrying to completion 

 the works specified in the permit. There is no inspection to determine 

 whether this has been done. Whether work is begun in proper time 

 and carried on with proper diligence will be brought up only when 

 some adverse claim arises, when the applicant will be required to 

 prove compliance with the law. One such case has arisen and is still 

 pending. The provision for filing bond conditioned on completion of 

 the work was enacted in 1905, and there has been little opportunity 

 to observe its workings. Its natural result will be to prevent filings 

 for the purpose of blocking some other enterprise or for the purpose 

 of selling worthless "rights" based only on a permit from the engineer. 

 The requirement that duplicate maps be filed with the applica- 

 tion will have the same effect, since it adds to the expense necessary 

 to securing a permit. If surveys must be made, maps made in dupli- 

 cate, and bonds filed, the danger of filings for an}' but legitimate pur- 

 poses will be lessened. Another provision having the same tendency 

 is the filing fee of $1 for the first cubic foot per second filed on and 10 

 cents for each additional cubic foot per second. While 10 cents per 

 cubic foot per second is a small fee, it is sufficient to retard the filing of 

 applications for extravagant amounts of water. 



