300 IRRIGATION FARMING. 



tion. It is said that when a person commences the con- 

 struction of a ditch, tapping a stream and thereafter 

 within a reasonable time completes his ditch and diverts 

 and applies the water to beneficial use, his right thus 

 acquired relates back to the time of the commencement 

 of the construction of the ditch. The Constitution 

 seems to give the right to the first actual appropriator to 

 beneficial use, but the courts have apparently engrafted 

 a new principle upon that instrument the term "rea- 

 sonable time," uncertain and indefinite in itself, becomes 

 more so when applied to the various cases which arise 

 under these laws. No man knows or can know what is 

 a ''reasonable time" in a given case until the courts 

 have passed upon the case. What might be considered 

 reasonable in one case might be considered unreasonable 

 in another, even under circumstances somewhat similar. 

 "Reasonable diligence" is said not to imply unusual or 

 extraordinary effort. It is also said that sickness and 

 lack of pecuniary means, being matters incident to the 

 person and not to the enterprise, will not excuse great 

 delay, and hence it follows that health and wealth, being 

 also incident to the person only, are not matters to be 

 considered, and the difficulty is that there is no fixed 

 standard or rule by which the claimant may be governed 

 in determining what is or would be considered "reason- 

 able time" or "reasonable diligence." 



The Use Must be Beneficial. The use must 

 be truly beneficial, and the appropriation must not be 

 excessive, nor for speculative purposes. And in deter- 

 mining these questions the amount of water appropri- 

 ated, the use to which the same is applied, the quantity 

 of land, character of soil, etc., are to be considered. 



Conibs vs. A. D. Co., 17 Col. 



The character, value and extent of the crops, and 

 their need of water for irrigation, should also be consid- 



