RECENT IKRIGATION LEGISLATION. 409 



independently of some definitely described tract of land. This 

 provision would seem to guard effectively against any exploitation 

 of the landowner by the water owner, since they can not be separate. 



However, the strongest objection to transfers of water rights in the 

 State of Wyoming, which is the only State recently enacting legisla- 

 tion against them, is administrative rather than economic. The 

 laws of that State and of most of the other arid States provide for 

 the adjudication of existing water rights and for the acquirement of 

 new rights in such a way that there will eventually be a complete list 

 of rights to water in each State, which will serve as a basis for dis- 

 tributing water from streams. It is contended that if rights can be 

 transferred without formalities these records of rights become value- 

 less immediatel}", since they may or may not represent the status of 

 rights at any time. It will be observed that this is not an argiunent 

 against transfers in themselves, but against unrecorded transfers. If 

 the transfers must be recorded in the same place where the records 

 of rights are kept, the records will remain complete. This has been 

 provided for in the laws on this subject. 



An important point of difference in the laws relating to transfers 

 is in the provisions covering the transfer of rights in their entirety 

 or in part. A group of States — North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, 

 Nevada, and Oregon — require the total severance of the right from 

 the original tract of land and its immediate transfer to another tract 

 (see footnote p. 408). Idaho, South Dakota, and New Mexico, on the 

 other hand, allow a transfer of a part of a right. The Idaho law 

 allows the water-right holder to "voluntarily abandon the use of 

 water in whole or in part on the land which is receiving the benefit 

 of the same, and transfer the same to other land." (Laws 1903, p. 

 234; 1905, p. 28; 1907, p. 508.) The New Mexico law of 1907 (sec. 

 44) provides that — 



by and with the consent of the owner of the land, all or any part of said right may be 

 fevered from said land and simultaneously transferred and become appurtenant to 

 other land, or may be transferred for other purposes, without losing priority of right 

 theretofore establi-shed. 



The two laws just quoted are not altogether clear as to whether the 

 holder of a right might continue to irrigate the entire area for which 

 he had a water right, and, by using less than the volume of water 

 decreed to him, secure a surplus which may be transferred to other 

 lands. Tlic Soutii Dakota law, however, seems to be clear on this 

 point. The South Dakota law of 1905 provided that the transfer 

 might be made if it became impracticable to "use water" on the 

 land, while the 1907 law provides that — 



if for any reason it shall at any time become impracticable to use all or any part of said 

 water benoficially f)r ocondniically fur llu> irrigation of any land to wliich tlie right 

 of use of the same is appurtenant, all or any part of said right may be .severed from said 

 land and simultaneously transferred to other land. 



