THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



169 



one or several defendants. If all who have already 

 been to court do not again appear they may be de- 

 prived of the rights decreed to them in the first suit. 

 This may go on indefinitely, and even to-day there is 

 no orderly proceeding under the law of most of the 

 western states and territories whereby all of the irri- 

 gators interested may appear at one time and secure a 

 division of the water on a permanent basis. It is de- 

 nied by those who are in a position to be better informed 

 that litigation over water has been no more common, 

 than that relating to the title of other property. The 

 truth is that the heart has been eaten out of many irri- 

 gation communities by constantly recurring strife in the 

 courts. 



As has been often said, water, and not land, is the 

 chief basis of value in an irrigated country. A ditch 

 leading through a; prairie may serve land just below it 

 worth from $100 to $500 per acre, while the grazing 

 land just above could hardly be sold for $2 per acre. 

 The government has disposed of the public land in a 

 systematic and business-like way, but has left the water 

 problems with the states and territories. This latter 

 has been disputed, but the contention has been over- 

 ruled by the United States Supreme Court, A recent 

 decision of that court, (Thomas C. Guiterres et al.,. 

 appellants, v. The Albuquerque Land and Irrigation 

 Company) emphasizes other decrees of similar char- 

 acter. The decision states that Congress has recog- 

 nized state and territorial legislation relating to the 

 diversion and use of water by two acts, one of 1866 and 

 one of 1891, and in the specific case sustains the terri- 

 torial statutes of New Mexico providing for the appro- 

 priation of water for beneficial uses and overrules the 

 contention that such water is the property of the United 

 States and not of the territory. With but few excep- 

 tions the states have not wholly accepted the responsi- 

 bility thus imposed, and in consequence, water is gener- 

 ally left to be quarrelled over. Until within the past 

 few years no organized effort has been made to obstruct 

 reform irrigation legislation. What opposition has been 

 felt has arisen from local sources. That water should 

 not be treated as personal property, but should belong 

 to the land irrigated, and that the volume furnished 

 should be limited to the quantity that can be beneficially 

 applied, are among the principles which have been in- 

 dorsed by the leading thinkers and writers on irrigation 

 matters. These along with other meritorious provis- 

 ions were first incorporated in the laws of Wyoming, 

 which state is considered to at least be abreast of the 

 reform movements to improve the condition of the irri- 

 gator. It might be said that the laws of the Dominion 

 of Canada are similar to those of Wyoming and that 

 Montana, lying between the two, has no law providing 

 a means whereby claims to water can be equitably, 

 cheaply and definitely settled. 



There are people in every state who realize the in- 

 efficiency of the laws. in force, and who endeavor to 

 make public their defects that reform may be brought 

 about. The farmers of the west would still be quarrel- 

 ing over their land titles and farm boundaries if the 

 government had not provided that each should be given 

 title to a definite area having a fixed boundary. There 

 is no good reason why the rights to use water should be 

 any less definite in character, and we believe the time 

 is rapidly approaching when a reform along this line 

 must be carried out. The influences which are now 

 operating to delay or altogether prevent such a reform 

 will be dealt with later in this paper. That the motives 



of the agents thus employed are selfish, will, we believe, 

 be made evident. Our object is to improve conditions 

 in those districts where reform is needed and where 

 the irrigator is now giving up his hard-earned money 

 to protect his water right. 



EARLY AGITATION TO ENLIST NATIONAL AID. 



The early settlers of the west realized that the 

 government should do more than give title to land to 

 enable the pioneer to compete with the more fortunate 

 farmer of eastern districts. In Colorado, meetings were 

 held during the early seventies to bring the matter to 

 the attention of the government. This move has stead- 

 ily grown and while partial success has finally been 

 achieved, we should not permit ourselves to believe that 



HON. JOSEPH M CARgY, 



Cheyenne, Wyoming. 



recognition from Congress has been gained through 

 any single influence. Colonel E. S. Nettleson was one 

 of the early pioneers in this agitation and a man who 

 understood irrigation from both a theoretical and prac- 

 tical standpoint. He took an active part in the irri- 

 gation development near Greeley and saw that that 

 colony could have but slow growth unless outside aid 

 were to be enlisted in the construction of irrigation 

 works. The colony has grown, and in thirty years has 

 become the foremost in the country in the culture of 

 several staple crops. The injustice that was done many 

 of the early irrigators through a lack of central con- 

 trol of the water supply and a failure to establish rights 

 as soon as the normal flow of the stream was exhausted 

 has retarded settlement and made the development of 

 the country difficult. The people of the Greeley colony 



