224 Bulletin 88 



the decree, many farmers have over-irrigated their lands and some 

 localities have become water-logged and alkalied. A temporary 

 decree in Apache County in 1917 established the duty of water at 

 St. Johns at one cubic foot per second for 75 acres, at Eagar at one 

 second-foot for 100 acres, and at Greer at one second-foot for 150 

 acres. The distinction between the conditions at different altitudes 

 is logical and is an important step forward. In 1918 the decree was 

 changed so as to allow one second-foot per 90 acres at St. Johns, 

 110 acres at Eager and 180 acres at Greer. Inasmuch as rotation 

 of water is practiced thruout Arizona, the duty of water should 

 be stated in acre-feet per acre per year or a monthly schedule can 

 be decreed for the limiting use of water. 



Irrigation districts and cooperative companies can influence the 

 use and waste of water under their canals by their method of 

 charging for water. The old flat rate, a fixed amount per ucre per 

 year, was a constant challenge to each irrigator to use as much 

 water as he could obtain. It was as unreasonable as a proposition 

 to buy the family flour supply at a fixed sum per annum. The 

 water should be measured to each water user and each user should 

 pay on the basis of the amount which he uses. In the Salt River 

 Valley the change from the old flat rate to the new basis in 1912 

 resulted immediately in a decreased use of water : what remains to 

 be done is the installation of weirs or other measuring devices so 

 that the measurements can be made more accurately than they are 

 at present. 



With the exception of some projects which will require Federal 

 aid, surface water supplies in Arizona are quite thoroly appro- 

 priated, and the limit of development of groundwater supplies will 

 be reached in a few years. But the water supplies must be made 

 to serve more land and this must be brought about thru a reduction 

 of the water losses. No longer is it considered justifiable for ap- 

 propriators to divert and use excessive amounts of water even tho 

 they may have been doing so for many years. The modern view- 

 point of courts in the other arid states is that no man has a right to 

 take more water than he can put to beneficial use together with a 

 reasonable allowance for conveyance and other losses. But each 

 appropriator is expected to make such expenditures on his ditches 

 and in the preparation of his land and in his care of the land that 

 his losses will be small and the general water supply thereby con- 

 served. As Judge J. H. Kibbey said in his decree covering water 

 rights in the Salt River Valley, "No man has a right to waste a 

 drop of water." 



