94 



because the official autliorized to bring action was field not a party in 

 interest and tlierefore not competent to bring an action for the defining 

 of ri<rhts. In Utah the engineer has be";un surveys and the collection 

 of data preparatory to beginning an action in the court, but has not 

 proceeded far enough for the law to be ruled upon by the court. In the 

 other States the laws have not yet become effective. There is a dif- 

 erence in detail in these States, which, however, does not seem to 

 affect the main question on which the Idaho law was declared void. 

 In Utah the engineer is to submit the data collected to the clerk of the 

 court in some one of the counties in which the stream lies, while in the 

 other States the data is to be turned over to the attorney-general, who 

 is then to begin an action in the name of the State. 



It appears, then, from a study of the operation of the laws for defin- 

 ing- water rights in the various States that so far the only effective 

 means of securing a complete list is to have the work done by an admin- 

 istrative board or official, subject to review by the courts. The 

 provision contained in the newer laws for the bringing of actions by 

 the attorney-general in the name of the State may prove effective, 

 but it seems doubtful in view of the decision against the Idaho law. 



In the States which have provided a system for supervising the 

 acquirement of rights the necessity for adjudicating existing rights 

 will in a few years pass away, since all new rights will be defined as 

 they are acquired, and, naturally, the time will soon come when all 

 rights acquired before the passage of the laws providing for super- 

 vision of the acquirement of rights will have been defined. In the 

 States where rights are still acquired by appropriation the necessity 

 for a system of defining rights will continue to exist. 



The essentials of a system of controlling the acquirement of rights 

 are the same as those for defining rights — accuracy and completeness. 

 The system adopted for securing a complete record are in general 

 similar in the States which have adopted any system. There must be 

 an application to the State engineer, stating the intentions of the 

 applicant and describing the works to be built, approval of this appli- 

 cation by the State engineer, and submission of proof of having com- 

 plied with the conditions of the approved application. For complete- 

 ness this is all that is essential, and some States stop with this. 

 Colorado, for instance, requires the engineer to approve any filing 

 which contains a clear statement of what is claimed, while Idaho 

 recpiires the engineer to approve any application which is made in 

 proper form. Colorado, however, has no provision for inspection or 

 proof of completion, and its rcfiuiroment of filings by those wishing 

 to appropriate water is of no value from the standpoint of furnishing 

 a list of rights. 



For accuracy most of the States recjuire an examination of the plans 

 submitted ^^^tll the application and surveys or examinations of the 

 completed works, and, in some States, of the land irrigated, in order 



