-476 IRRIGATION FARMING. 



The right is in no way dependent upon the locus of 

 its application to the beneficial and designed. 



Hammond vs. Rose, 11 Col. 526 



The lands irrigated need not be on the banks, nor 

 even in the vicinity of the stream from which the 

 water is taken. The water may be condudled across 

 a watershed and onto a different drainage and yet the 

 right is preserved. 



Coffin vs. Left Hand Ditch Co., Sttpra 



The right is absolute and unqualified so long as it 

 exists. It may not be lost by abandonment. 



Siber vs. Frink, 7 Col. 154 



Dorr vs. Hammond, Id. 83 



Burnham vs. Freeman, ii Id. 601 



But proof of non-user as evidence of abandonment 

 must be strong; failure for an unreasonable length of 

 time to use the water may afford a presumption of in- 

 tention to abandon the right, still such presumption 

 may be overcome by satisfactory proofs. 



Siber vs. Frink, Supra 



An intention to abandon may be shown in various 

 ways. It has been held that an attempted verbal 

 transfer or sale of the right operates as an abandon- 

 ment, as it conveys nothing and manifests an intention 

 to part with the right. 



Smith vs. O'Hara and Barkley vs. Tickele, Supra 



But it must be borne in mind that as abandonment 

 is a question of intention, the a(5ls of the party to be 



