AN UNSOLVED WESTERN PROBLEM. 



make it an imperative necessity. The same policy 

 should be pursued with inter-state rights, and when 

 this is done it will be found, in many instances, that 

 the evils which are anticipated have no existence in 

 fact. From careful study, and I believe a thorough 

 understanding of the situation, I am able to cite one 

 instance: The North Platte river which flows from 

 Colorado into Wyoming, and from Wyoming entirely 

 across Nebraska. Here are three separate jurisdic- 

 tions and each interested in making the greatest pos- 

 sible use of the common supply. Notwithstanding 

 this, I am confident that no controversies will result. 

 The limited opportunities for its diversion in Colo- 

 rado and Wyoming will only result, if every diver- 

 sion which natural conditions will permit is made, 

 in both Wyoming and Colorado, in an increase rather 

 than a loss to the available water supply below. 



There are many such streams. Indeed, it holds 

 true of all the principal rivers leaving Wyoming, 

 but there are numerous instances where it is not the 

 case. 



On minor water courses, and on streams where the 

 irrigable lands exceed the water supply, controver- 

 sies are inevitable. The Arkansas in Colorado and 

 Kansas, the Bear river in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, 

 are illustrations of streams that already are, or soon 

 will be, over appropriated. Some provision for the 

 registry and adjudication of all the rights to the 

 water and for such measure of supervision across 

 state lines as may be possible should be provided. 



This brings up the political problems to be faced, 

 and the first of these is the fact that in a consider- 

 able portion of the arid region such a thing as inter- 

 state rights has no legal existence. There are no 

 laws recognizing or defining such rights. There is 

 no tribunal provided for their registry or adjudica- 

 tion, nor is there any body of executive officers to 

 supervise the streams. Not only is there an entire 

 absence of machinery for the proper registry and en- 

 forcement of such rights, but there is a further 

 obstacle in the fact that the majority of the states of 

 the arid region have expressly abrogated the doc- 

 trine of riparian rights, and in two of the states at 

 least the ownership of the waters has been conferred 

 by a specific grant of the National Assembly. 



There is a further complication in the fact that 

 there is no common basis in the laws of the different 

 states by which the respective rights could be de- 

 termined. In one respect only is there a uniformity 

 as to the basis of rights to water. The doctrine that 

 priority of appropriation gives the better right is 

 very generally accepted, but the laws and practices 

 of the states in construing the word "appropriation '' 

 vary so widely that it would be difficult, if not impos- 

 sible, for two states to settle their respective claims 

 by any mutual agreement. Wyoming, with its rigid 



restrictions over grants of water, would not recog- 

 nize as valid some of the liberal grants of neighbor- 

 ing states. Then, too, some states recognize what 

 are known as preferred priorities. In Colorado and 

 Idaho, for example, appropriations for domestic u?es 

 take precedence over those for irrigation, thus doing 

 away with priority of use as a basis for the better 

 right. In Utah there are primary and secondary ap- 

 propriations, while in Wyoming and a number of 

 other states, the doctrine that priority of time gives 

 priority of right is subject to no conditions whatever, 

 appropriations for all uses standing on an equal 

 footing. 



To harmonize these diverse customs and secure the 

 acquiescence of these conflicting interests is a matter 

 of no small moment. They are the general problems. 

 There is one special one. The States of Wyoming 

 and Colorado are the sources of the principal water 

 supply of the Rocky mountain region. Both these 

 States have in their constitutions an explicit declara- 

 tion that the waters of the State are the property of 

 the State. This declaration has been ratified and the 

 grant confirmed by Congress. The national authori- 

 ties have thus withdrawn their jurisdiction over this 

 matter so far as those two states are concerned. It is 

 now a question whether such jurisdiction can again 

 be asserted. The citizens of those states have made 

 large investments and appropriated the water under 

 the secure conditions of the national grant, and it be- 

 comes an interesting question as to whether or not 

 they can now be divested of its use and control. An 

 extensive and complete system of supervision and 

 control of these waters has been inaugurated as a 

 part of the state government of each of these two 

 states. Rights having great present and enormous 

 prospective value have been established and con- 

 firmed under the laws and regulations of these two 

 states and are rapidly acquiring that stability and se- 

 curity which only a lapse of time and the force of 

 custom could give. It must not be expected that the 

 people of these states will voluntarily surrender the 

 control now exercised, or the advantages which their 

 laws give them by virtue of their location. There is 

 only one way in which this matter can be harmoni- 

 ously adjusted, which is through a voluntary surren- 

 der of present privileges through the securing of 

 compensating advantages in other directions. 



In stating this I do not wish to be understood as re- 

 garding the present condition of affairs as in many 

 respects desirable. Indeed, I regard the whole sys- 

 tem of unlimited and uncontrolled appropriations a 

 system in which the appropriators of Kansas have no 

 means of knowing what is taking place in Colorado, 

 or the appropriators of Nebraska of the work of their 

 neighbors in Wyoming, is a grievous blunder. It is 

 certain to lead to the construction of ditches for 



