93 



of tlio most serious clilliculties which have arisen in irrio;atc(l districts 

 in Colorado. 



As a direct result of the inaccuracy of this Colorado sj'stcni of delin- 

 ini>; rio;hts, Wyoming adopted its system under which rights are deter- 

 mined very largely by administrative officers on data secured In' 

 surveys and measurements made by experts, and rights are limited 

 not by the capacities of the works, but by the needs of the lands 

 watered. In tliis way greater accuracy has been secured, 1)ut from 

 the standpoint of the oilicer charged with the distribution of water 

 the greater advantage of the Wyoming system is that under it it is 

 possible to secure a complete list of all existing rights. The board 

 of control whicli defines rights is not compelled to wait until conilicts 

 have arisen, but as soon as its means will permit may make the meas- 

 lU'ements and collect tlie data for determining the rights on any 

 stream and make its oriler defining them. If funds had been provided 

 it would have been possible within a very few years, under the Wyom- 

 ing law, to defme all the riglits within the State, but funds luive been 

 limited, and after sixteen years there arc still man}' undefinetl rights 

 in Wyoming. This system has been copied with slight modifications 

 In Nebraska, Nevada, and New Mexico. In Nebraska and Nevada 

 the process was sim])lifie(l by leaving to the board of irrigation the 

 j)rocedure iukUu- which rights are defined. In both these States it 

 has been left to one man, the State engineer, to make the surveys, col- 

 lect the testimony, and define the rights, reserving, in Nebraska, the 

 riglit of appeal to the State board and later to the courts, and in 

 Nevada to the courts. In Nel)raska this resulted in the complete 

 defining of existing rights within a very few years. The Nevada law 

 has been in effect but three years, but the determination of rights 

 there is much more rapid than in Wyoming. 



In the t)ther States it is ver}' generally field tliat the determination 

 of rights is a judicial matter, and can not therefore be delegated to an 

 administrative oflicer. In tliose States there lias been an attempt to 

 secure the advantages of the Wyoming sj'stem and still leave tlie 

 matter in tlie courts, provision being made for surveys by the State 

 engineer whenever suits regarding water rights are begun. This pro- 

 vision has been adopted in Idaho, where, however, it is discretionary 

 with the court whether- the engineer will be called in, and in Utah, 

 Oregon, North and South Dakota, and Oklahoma. But these laws 

 are of so recent date that their efficiency has not been tested. For 

 the sake of providing a complete list of rights where their defining is 

 left in the courts, the State engineer or some subordinate has been 

 authorized to begin actions after maknig such surveys and measure- 

 ments as are necessary. This provision has been adopted in Idaho, 

 Utah, North and South Dakota, and Oklahoma. The only State 

 where this system has been tested is Idaho, where it was declared void, 



