95 



tliat ri<::lits may Ix' limited (o \\w (luantities of water wliich liave l)oen 

 put to a boiu'licial use. Utah allows, instead of this examination, 

 sworn statements by the ap})licant and two disinterested parties, 

 although the engineer may make examinations if he deems it neces- 

 sary. A compulsory examination by the engineer lias its drawbacks. 

 When the works are small or situated in remote districts the expense 

 for examination is greater than is justified by the value of the rights. 

 It has, therefore, been recommended in some States where examination 

 is required that the engineer be allowed to accept sworn statements 

 for remote and unimportant works, as is done in Utah. North and 

 South Dakota and Oklahoma accept certificates of competent engi- 

 neers for small works. 



The engineers in several of the States liave been given authority to 

 reject applications for various causes. It should be notetl that such 

 authority is not necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes 

 of public supervision of the accjuirement of rights. Both accuracy 

 and completeness can be secured without this authority for rejection. 

 It must be based, therefore, on reasons of policy outside of the main 

 purpose of the law. The most common cause for rejection is the fact 

 that there is no unappropriated water in the source of supply. It is 

 an apparent absurdity to require the engineer to approve an applica- 

 tion for the diversion of water from a stream which contains no water 

 to which a right can be accpiired. But there is something to be said 

 in favor of appro\nng application on streams which are already fully 

 appropriated. The flow of a stream is not fixed, but increases and 

 decreases from year to year, the flow in the latter part of the season 

 almost universally increasing as the lands along its banks are irrigated, 

 while the water requirements of land under irrigation have a tendency 

 to decrease. The engineer is not, therefore, in a position to state that 

 there is at any time no unappropriated water in a stream to which 

 rights can be acquired. Decrease in use under existing rights, increase 

 in flow due to seepage, and occasional supplies from unusually high 

 floods may at any time furnish some supply for a new ditch. The 

 Wyoming practice in regard to the rejection of applications upon this 

 ground seems to be better than the Idaho practice. In Idaho the 

 engineer approves all applications which are in proper form, making 

 no reference to the supply which may be secured, while in Wyoming 

 the engineer approves such an application, but stamps across the face 

 of it a statement warning the applicant that the stream is very largely 

 appropriated; that there is doubt as to his being able to secure any 

 water, and that he must not interfere with existing rights. This sys- 

 tem gives warning to the applicant, but at the same time allows him 

 to proceed with construction if he thinks the chance of securing water 

 is great enough to justify him in building works. If the works are 

 built he will be in a position to take advantage of any supply which 



