96 



may become available on account of more economical use, return 

 seepage, or wet seasons. 



Most of the States give the engineer authority to inquire into the 

 feasibility of the project and the conformity of the plans to correct 

 engineering principles. This is justified as a protection to property, 

 and is a desirable exercise of public supervision. 



The engineers are also given authority to inquire into the financial 

 ability and good faith of applicants. With the exception of Idaho 

 none of the States goes into any detail on this matter. Idaho requires 

 the filing of a bond as a guaranty of good faith. Without such 

 inquiry by the engineer or the filing of a bond as required in Idaho, it 

 is possible for the parties having no means for carrying out works or 

 those wisliing merely to delay or hold up some legitimate project to 

 file applications which are purely speculative, without any intention 

 or ability to build works. The protection of the State's resources 

 makes it essential that there should be some such check upon specu- 

 lative filings. The Idaho irequirements for the filing of a bond and 

 payment of a filing fee of 10 cents for each cubic foot per second after 

 the first seem to be preferable to general authority for the State engi- 

 neer to inquire into the financial abilit}^ and good faith of the applicant, 

 since the exercise of this authority by the engineer subjects him 

 to charges of favoritism, and leads to ill feeling on the part of those 

 whose applications are rejected. 



Wyoming, the pioneer State in providing for the public supervision 

 of the acquirement of rights, gives the engineer authority to reject 

 applications which are contrary to public policy. This has been fol- 

 lowed by most of the States which have adopted codes in recent years. 

 This provision is so general in its terms that it may be interpreted to 

 mean much or little. In Wyoming charges of favoritism were made 

 against the engineer, and the exercise of this authority has given him 

 a great deal of trouble. The engineer of Nevada holds that this pro- 

 vision gives him no authority to reject applications which conform to 

 the general rules of the office. The Utah engineer held that this pro- 

 vision gave him authority to choose between possible uses and refused 

 an application for a use which in his opinion was not the best possible 

 use of the water. Appeal was taken to the courts, the engineer 

 was overruled in this matter, and at the next session of the legislature 

 the law was repealed. In the other States which have adopted this 

 provision the law is not yet effective. It appears, therefore, that this 

 law is either ineffective or unpopular with both the engineers and the 

 public. It seems very doubtful whether such discretion or such a 

 burden should be put upon an officer, as it leaves room for charges 

 of discrimination and appeals to the courts. It seems to be better to 

 leave to the legislature the determination of what is good public policy, 

 making the engineer a strictly administrative officer, who is to see that 

 these principles are enforced. 



