452 



THE IRRIGATION AGE 



reaus having some practical aim should be substituted 

 for them. We have had more senseless matter published 

 relative to forests than we need. Every man loves trees. 

 No department of the government should take advantage 

 of this natural sentiment to advertise all kinds of ap- 

 proaching calamities because some trees are being de- 

 stroyed each year. No department of the government pre- 

 suming to stand for scientific attainments can be excused 

 for attributing benefits from forests which science must 

 deny. When it becomes profitable for the land owner to 

 grow trees on a commercial scale, he will do so. The peo- 

 ple of the west are planting more trees than they arc- 

 destroying. Let the government protect the public forests 

 from, fires and careless cutting and encourage a lumber 

 commerce. Allow the settler all rights in the pniblic 

 forests that he has enjoyed from the earliest days of the 

 Republic. The Irrigation Congress should not concern 

 itself in supporting any department of the government or 

 of the state which tends to restrict progress and develop- 

 ment. 



If the Irrigation Congress does not have for its ob- 

 ject some educational purpose along irrigation lines, its 

 value to the west is not great. The congress should at 

 least consider questions of development, if it is not dis- 

 posed to take up the broader problems relating to colon- 

 ization and the principles of irrigation law and adminis- 

 tration. The average delegate delights in generalities. 

 Pretty phrases commending the reclamation and forest 

 services appeal to him. What definite ideas has he rela- 

 tive to policies that should be embraced to further the 

 work of the Reclamation Service? Does he believe that 

 this work should be so conducted that projects will be 

 taken up in less number and those actually exploited be 

 hastened to completion? Has he any idea as to the wis- 

 dom of restricting settlers to 40, 80 and 120- acre tracts 

 instead of allowing all to select the limit of a homestead 

 entry, 160 acres? Does he believe that the government 

 should greatly concern itself in irrigation development 

 where private capital promises equally good work and 

 equally cheap water rights? 



If the Irrigation Congress can not assist the Reclama- 

 tion Service in its work except by passing meaningless 

 resolutions, its place as a factor in such development is 

 a blank. If we can not help private enterprise in all 

 legitimate development, we have but little reason for main- 

 taining an organization. In my judgement, we should go 

 further. There are more important matters for us to 

 consider. The construction of irrigation works and the 

 reclamation of lands are strictly engineering problems on 

 the ground. The national government and each state 

 administration should bend every effort to direct settle- 

 ment, to the end that the best people may be brought to 

 occupy our irrigated lands in the shortest possible time 

 after water is ready for them. The future greatness of the 

 west depends on the character of the rural population 

 that we secure now. We should do something to assist 

 the water user who, without a stable state or territorial 

 administration, is left defenseless after the Reclamation 

 Service and private enterprise retire from their phys- 

 ical labors. 



Those interested in irrigation fluestions have been 

 meeting annually for seventeen years. During all of that 

 time this congress has not accepted a single fundamental 

 principle relating to colonization or to the control of 

 streams. We leave all of these questions, which should 

 be studied from the broadest standpoint and applied gen- 



erally, when found, to furnish the relief sought, to the 

 courts of the various states and territories. This is an 

 injustice. It is a burden on our tribunals of justice that 

 should never be imposed. Courts can and will do every- 

 thing possible to settle controversies among the people of 

 the states and territories. The courts can receive testi- 

 mony relating to appendicitis and issue decrees of a med- 

 ical nature. The courts can take the place of our boards 

 of health, when properly informed by competent testi- 

 mony. All questions might be brought to our depart- 

 ments of justice. As the race has grown in wisdom, it 

 has been found best to trust special and technical ques- 

 tions and administration to specialists. This brings 

 prompt relief to those who demand it, and enables the 

 public to protect the individual as the individual deserves 

 at the hands of the public. 



The arid states and territories were fully represented 

 at the Irrigation Congress. We assemble to discuss irri- 

 gation. Regardless of the pride we take in the history 

 of our congress, we have accomplished so little. We have 

 no settled policy as to the best method for carrying on 

 the construction of irrigation works. We have no well 

 defined ideas as to colonization. We can not say in 

 unison that water belongs to the states and territories in 

 perpetuity, or even that it belongs to the public. One state 

 or territory may complicate the use of water for irriga- 

 tion with the claims of riparian proprietors. Another 

 will allow its citizens to claim all the water in sight and 

 hold it as personal property, thus robbing individuals and 

 communities that might make a beneficial use of the same. 

 Nearly all of the states and territories provide what is 

 called an irrigation administration. By cunning manipu- 

 lation in the law-making bodies, many of these officers 

 who should be active and of some service to the water 

 users, are robbed of executive authority. This is done at 

 the instance of those who wish to continue an uninter- 

 rupted traffic in water and water rights, regardless of the 

 presumed riehts of the actual water user or the com- 

 munity in which they operate. The courts have naturally 

 found irrigation questions to be trying ones. It is natural 

 that court decrees, even in the supreme court of a single 

 state, are conflicting. The reason for this is that the 

 fundamentally important principles are not embraced in 

 the law. The courts have considered and decided the 

 question as to the ownership of water until the deepest 

 irrigation student is in a dazed condition when he re- 

 views the various decisions relating thereto. Practically 

 all other problems of utmost importance to water users 

 are in the same condition of uncertainty. 



It must be admitted that the signs of the times point 

 to a growth of some sentiment which promises, in time, 

 a solution of these problems. This change has not been 

 brought about or encouraged by the Irrigation Congress 

 or by those who should stand for what is right in our 

 law-making bodies. Thought along these lines is being 

 crystalized by demands from the water user, himself, and 

 by those who are leading in the development of the west 

 through private enterprise. 



Unlimited traffic in water to suit the personal and 

 financial interests of a few has been detrimental to the 

 large body of water users. We should recognize this. 

 We place ourselves on record should we say that water 

 always belongs to the state or territory in which it is 

 used, and that the right to use should be limited to the 

 extent of beneficial application of the water that is made 

 (Continued on page 461.) 



