408 HKPORT OF OFFICE OF EXPKRIMENT STATIONS. 



Wyoininj; hounl of control IkkI held tliut ii<,'lits could not he trans- 

 ftMTod from tlio lands in connection with which they were acquired, 

 and in I'JOii this was enacted into law in that State. Since 1895 

 rights in Nehraska have been insei)anil)ly attached to definite tracts 

 of land. With those two exceptions water riji^hts may still l)e trans- 

 ferred, but in the years from 1903 to 1909 there has been much 

 letjislation on this su])ject, the general purpose of which has been 

 to bring such transfers under the control of the state ofhcials charired 

 with the supervision of the use of public water supplies. Prior to 1 903 

 the general practice w^as for parties wishing to do so to make transfers, 

 putting on those considering themselves injured the burdenof bringing 

 actions to prevent the transfers. The laws enacted since tiiat time 

 require the party wishing to make a transfer to secure permission in 

 some form before making it, thus giving parties who might be injured 

 notice and an opportunity to protest. In all of the States and Ter- 

 ritories which have enacted laws prescribing the procedure for making 

 transfers, except Colorado, they must be referred to the state engineer. 

 In Colorado aj)plication is made to the court which issued the original 

 decree covering the right to bo transferred, and the proceedings are 

 the same as for an original adjudication (Laws 1903, p. 278; 1905, p. 

 244), and include notice to parties interested, a hearing before the 

 court, and the issuing of a decree either allowing or disallowing the 

 transfer. In the other States application must be made to the state 

 engineer, notice of the proposed transfer must be published, a hearing 

 is held, and the transfer allowed or disallowed by the engineer, Avith 

 appeal to the courts. 



The argument in favor of transfers is that they are essential to the 

 economical use of water. If rights ma}^ be transferred the tendency 

 will be for the water to gravitate to the land where it will bring the 

 largest return, while if they are inseparably attached to particular 

 tracts of land the holders of rights will continue to use water on inferior 

 lands rather than forfeit their rights by discontinuing the use of water 



Over against this economic advantage has been sot the fear that if a 

 water right may be transferred apart from the land on wdiich the 

 water is used, it will become the subject of separate ownership, and, 

 since arid land is almost valueless without water, the landow^ner 

 will be at the mercy of the water owner. American experience thus 

 far has not show^n this danger to be a real one, but the laws regarding 

 transfers passed in recent years, guard against it by providing that " 

 the right may^ only be transferred to and immediately become appur- 

 tenant to other land. In other words, a water right can not be held 



o "If for any reason it should at any time become impracticable to beneficially or 

 economically use water for the irrigation of any land to which the right of use of the 

 same is appurtenant, said right may be severed from said land and simultaneously 

 transferred and become appurtenant to other land." (,North Dak. Laws 1905, sec. 50.) 



