THE IRKIGATION AGE. 



169 



vicinity of Lethbridge, South Alberta," and it could 

 have been added with equal truth and knowledge that 

 the water will also irrigate lands in the Milk River 

 drainage and that the Canadians can couple up their 

 St. Mary and Milk River irrigation works in one ex- 

 tensive and comprehensive work, a fact which should 

 be within the knowledge of the United States Reclama- 

 tion Service, if it is not. 



Reference has been made in the above paragraph 

 to the Canadian irrigation system from St. Mary River. 

 It will be found equally interesting to follow the atti- 

 tude of the United States Reclamation Service on this 

 feature. 



It can not be considered as other than at least a 

 peculiar omission that no reference is made to the fact 

 that water was diverted from the St. Mary River in 

 Canada in Senate report No. 254. The first mention 

 of the fact is in the "condensed statement" and in the 

 following extraordinary language: 



"The water of the St. Mary River is not used in 

 the United States, but in Canadian territory, seven 

 miles north of the international line, is a canal com- 

 pleted in 1900. Between the site of the proposed dam 

 at the foot of St. Mary lake and the head of the Cana- 

 dian canal a considerable number of large streams dis- 

 charge into St. Mary River, furnishing an ample sup- 

 ply for the land irrigated in Canada. It is not be- 

 lieved that any international complications can arise 

 concerning water rights, since the water which it is 

 proposed to store and divert occurs wholly within Mon- 

 tana, and it would be impossible for the Canadians to 

 store and use this flood of water even if needed in 

 their canal." 



In the first annual report of the United States 

 Reclamation Service to December, 1902, from which, 

 as has been previously pointed out, it may be presumed 

 the "condensed statement" was taken, there is not a 

 word referring to Canadian appropriation of water 

 from St. Mary River. 



In the second annual report the following occurs: 



"The first difficulty arises from the fact that there 

 is already a canal in Canadian territory diverting water 

 from the St. Mary River. This canal is located about 

 seven miles north of the international boundary, and is 

 owned by the Canadian North Western Irrigation Com- 

 pany. The total length of the canal system is 200 

 miles including laterals." 



Then follow some details of dimensions, and 



"With these dimensions, the capacity of the canal 

 would be about 400 second feet. It is doubtful, how- 

 ever, if the canal, as at present constructed, can carry 

 more than one-half of this quantity." 



There are, in these few quotations, a really great 

 number of statements that are merely stupid that one 

 is amazed to find in expert reports. 



It is difficult to conceive what possible purpose 

 could be served by the expression of belief that no inter- 

 national complication can arise concerning water rights, 

 merely because the water "occurs wholly within Mon- 

 tana." The United States Reclamation Service knows 

 better than that or else it knows nothing of irrigation 

 law or of the previous actions of the United States Gov- 

 ernment in similar cases. 



Recently the water consumers in the lower Milk 

 River valley in Montana have circulated petitions to 

 appeal to the President of the United States protesting 

 against the diversion of water from the Milk River by 



the Canadians, in the course of which petition it is set 

 forth that "the distribution of water from a stream is 

 the same between nations as between individuals." 

 Yet here is the very governmental bureau, created for 

 the purpose of conducting this national irrigation work, 

 declaring a diametrically opposed doctrine in another 

 international stream not 100 miles removed ! And, in 

 the second annual report of the United States Reclama- 

 tion Service, there is found the following declaration: 



"To thoroughly settle the question of water diver- 

 sion from St. Mary's River and Milk River, it will 

 probably be necessary to come to some international 

 agreement between this country and Canada." 



Which, if it means anything, means that without 

 some such agreement, international complications could 

 arise! And that declaration is, doubtless, written by 

 the same hand that penned that extraordinary pro- 

 nouncement about the water occurring wholly in Mon- 

 tana. 



There are, further, a series of bold assertions made 

 that call for more than casual notice. 



"Between the site of the proposed dam * * * 

 and the head of the Canadian canal, a considerable 

 number of large streams discharge into the St. Mary'a 

 River, furnishing an ample supply for the land irri- 

 gated in Canada." 



"It would be impossible for the Canadians to store 

 and utilize this flood of water, even if needed in their 

 canal." 



"It is doubtful, however, if the canal as at present 

 constructed can carry more than half of this quantity." 



In the second annual report of the United States 

 Reclamation Service, it is further stated that "They 

 (the Canadians), however, can only use the natural 

 flow of the stream, as no storage facilities exist above 

 the head of their canal in Canada." 



Bearing in mind that every assertion made in these 

 reports regarding' the Milk River, its fall, the possibility 

 of diverting water from it in Canada, the length of 

 canal necessary to do so, have been proved inaccurate, 

 is there any assurance that these assertions regarding 

 the St. Mary River are not equally unfounded? The 

 presumption would, naturally, be that they are also 

 wrong. 



How, for instance, is it possible for the United 

 States Reclamation Service to know that a considerable 

 number of large streams discharge an ample supply 

 for the land irrigated in Canada? 



No surveys have been made by the United States 

 Reclamation Service of the area irrigated, or, what must 

 be properly considered, the area irrigable, and, while 

 considerable attention has been paid to stream measure- 

 ments in that region, no record is given of the meas- 

 urements of such "large streams." 



As a matter of fact, there are only two streams 

 between the St. Mary lakes and the intake of the Cana- 

 dian canals. 



Neither does the United States Reclamation Ser- 

 vice know anything whatever of the storage facilities 

 on the Canadian side of the international boundary. 

 Such facilities do exist both "above the head of their 

 canal in Canada" and elsewhere, that can utilize any 

 flood waters stored, and it is beyond the probabilities 

 that, when the Canadian is heard, there may be irrigable 

 areas and storage facilities tributary to the St. Mary 

 and Milk Rivers two or three times in excess of what 

 the United States Reclamation Service have yet shown 

 capable of development in Montana. 



