THK COMMOn LAW OF IRRIGATION. 48 1 



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 con- 

 sidered ' ' reasonable 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, characfler of soil, etc., are to be considered. 



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



The charac5ler, value and extent of the crops, and 

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

 sidered, and the waste of any ditch, flume, pipe-line, 

 or other conduit, should be the loss of the claimant. 



* ' Natural streams ' ' are not easily defined in terms 

 which will admit of universal application. It is said 

 that to constitute a water course there must be a de- 

 fined channel with bed and banks. 



Barnes vs. Sabron, 10 Nev. 217 



Simmonds vs. Winters (Oregon), 27 Pac. Rep. 7 



Barkley vs. Wilcox, 86 N. Y. 143 



Gibbs vs. Williams, 25 Kansas 220 



Jeffers vs. Jeffers, 107 N. Y. 651 



But whatever definition may be adopted it is ap- 

 parent that the term ' ' natural stream, ' ' as used in the 

 Colorado Constitution, refers more particularly to the 

 characfler and source of supply than to the form of the 

 stream. The principal source and origin is the melting 



