RECENT IRRIGATION LEGISLATION. 405 



granted it specifically. The case was not taken to the state supreme 

 court and the law was repealed. This Utah case was interesting 

 because the right applied for contemplated an entirely proper use of 

 the water, but a use which, in the opinion of the engineer, was not 

 the best use which might be made of the water in question. In the 

 other States this issue has not been raised, the engineers not con- 

 sidering it wise to reject an application for a present use in favor of 

 a possible better use in the future, although this would seem to be 

 the field for which such a law is especially adapted. 



The Idaho law above referred to, requiring the engineer to approve 

 any application which is in proper form, has been criticised because 

 under it the engineer is compelled to approve plans for schemes which 

 he may know to be fraudulent, because there is no unappropriated 

 water in the source of supply filed on, thus enabling the promoters 

 to go before the public selling rights on the basis of an approved 

 application, the approval of which signifies only that the application 

 is in proper form. To remedy this a law was passed in 1909 requiring 

 parties proposing to sell rights to file plans and proposed contracts 

 with the state engineer and state land board and petition the board 

 for the right to sell rights. The engineer is to examine the plans, 

 determine the capacity of the works, the sufficiency of the water 

 supply and the duty of water, and report to the land board, after 

 which the board is to issue a certificate showing the number of rights 

 which may be sold, the number of acres which can be irrigated, and 

 the form of contract which shall be used. This certificate is to be 

 recorded in the office of the county recorder. All contracts for 

 rights are to be of the form specified, and are to be recorded in the 

 office of the county recorder as soon as sold. Any contract or deed 

 issued before the recording of the certificate or in excess of the amount 

 authorized is rmll and void, and the seller is liable to the purchaser 

 for damages and to a fine of SI 00 to $300 or to imprisonment not 

 exceeding six months. This law does not apply to Carey Act or 

 reclamation projects, since Carey Act projects are approved by the 

 engineer and land board under other laws. This law is very much 

 needed in Idaho as well as in other States, because of the fact that 

 ])ur(has('rs of water rights are more at the mercy of promoters than 

 the pun-liasers of almost any other form of property, since water 

 rights are difficult to understand and there is no way in which the 

 uninitiated can determine the value of the rights of the company 

 selling rights. While the examination by the state engineer and the 

 issuing of a certificate l)y the state land board does not guarantee the 

 value of the rights, it is good evidence of their value. 



The general irrigation laws of Utah were amended in several details. 

 One important change was made in the fees to be collected by the 

 state engineer- for examining and filing papers. The old law provided 



