400 REPORT OF OFTICR OF EXPF.RIMFNT STATIONS, 



all parties olainiin*^ rif^hts to water from the same source should bo 

 made parties to the suit, and estahlislied a special procedure for such 

 suits. But this would not necessarily brinj^ about a speedy adjudica- 

 tion because such a suit mi^ht not arise for years. 



Wyominj; made the next step, which was to provide for the collec- 

 tion of the information necessary for (lefniin<i: all ri;i;lits to water by 

 state ollicials, and the definin<j; of the rights by an administrative 

 board created by the state constitution for that purpose. Tlus system 

 diil'ers from the other in two essential particulars — it cakes adjudii ra- 

 tion of water rights out of the courts and it makes it unnecessary to 

 wait until rights come into controversy before they can be defined. 

 It changes the point of view entirely. Under the Colorado system the 

 <lefining of rights to water from a public stream is considered purely 

 a controversy between individuals, which must be adjudicated by a 

 court, and which may be settled by agreement between these indi- 

 viduals, as many such cases were. Under tlie Wyoming system, on 

 the other hand, the defining of rights is not considered a contest 

 between individuals, or a judicial matter, but an action by the State 

 to determine what rights have been established to the use of a part 

 of a public property. 



These two systems are the protot^'pes of those adopted by all the 

 arid States and Territories, some foUoAnng one and some the other. 

 The advantages of the Wyoming system are generally admitted, but 

 under the theory of the Colorado svstem that adjudications are con- 

 trovereies between individuals, they are held to be judicial matters 

 which can not be taken from the courts. The States which have 

 adopted the W^yoming systems are Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon. 

 New Mexico adopted this sj^stem in 1905, but abandoned it in 1907 

 for the Colorado system. 



The States which have adopted the Colorado system have tried 

 to secure the principal advantage of the Wyoming system — speedy 

 adjudication, and the collection of data on which to base adjudica- 

 tions by public officials — but without great success. The state engi- 

 neei-s or other officials were to bring actions for the adjudication of 

 water rights after the engineers had made surveys and collected all 

 the information necessary for such adjudications, making the process 

 similar to that in Wyoming, except that the decree was entered by 

 the court rather than by the board of control. This provision has 

 been adopted in several States and Territories, notably Utah, Idaho, 

 the Dakotas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, but without much success. 

 It was declared unconstitutional in Idaho (Bear Lake v. Budge, 75 

 Pac, 615), on the ground that the water commissioner who was to 

 bring such acticm in Idaho was not a party in interest and could not 

 bring such an action. The law is still in force in Utah, where the 

 state engineer is to make surveys and collect information and 



