THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



been successful and a very able commission, on which 

 served ex-Judge Works, President Wheeler, of Cali- 

 fornia University, and President Jordan, of Stanford; 

 Mr. F. H. Newell and Mr. Elwood Mead, representing 

 the United States Department of Interior and Agricul- 

 ture, respectively, proposed legislation to establish state 

 control. Colorado began to exercise control in the divi- 

 sion of water fourteen years ago. Wyoming when ad- 

 mitted a state in 1890 adopted a comprehensive irri- 

 gation code, providing for state control and supervision ; 

 five years later Nebraska enacted a code substantially 

 like Wyoming's. After twelve years' trial in Wyoming 

 and seven in Nebraska, irrigators and officials in both 

 states testify that the law is very satisfactory, that it 

 has served to adjudicate about 5,000 claims, outside 

 the courts, at a minimum of expense and with such 

 satisfaction to water users that only about a dozen ap- 

 peals have been taken from the State Board of Control 

 to the District Court. The late Governor Richards 

 wrote me, "This law has been the means of preventing 

 that vast and costly litigation which, since the incep- 

 tion of irrigation, has characterized the determination 

 and settlement of claims to water." Under state con- 

 trol there has been adequate protection to prior users, 

 prevention of - litigation, waste, and over-appropriation, 

 stream measurements have been made, water right rec- 

 ords perfected, made easily accessible, and other val- 

 uable data obtained. Wise men profit by the experience 

 of others and we ought to heed well the results of state 

 control in Wyoming and Nebraska. The Wyoming law 

 was highly commended by Mr. Geo. H. Maxwell in 

 National Advocate, and also in a brief filed before 

 the California Supreme Court. Recently Mr. Maxwell 

 has opposed state laws and publishes in a plan of cam- 

 paign for the National Irrigation Association opposi- 

 tion to schemes for state control. I have no wish to 

 detract from any credit due Mr. Maxwell and the asso- 

 ciation for aiding national irrigation; my sole purpose 

 is to present views on supervision and control which 

 are held by a large number of practical irrigators who 

 have labored 'as long, as ardently and as ably as any 

 one to advance irrigation. 



It was alleged in printed matter sent to the legis- 

 lators of one state that complications with the Govern- 

 ment would result from state laws. But it was not 

 shown how these would occur, nor why the National 

 Government would be embarrassed by carrying out the 

 recommendation made by President Roosevelt, Secretary 

 Wilson and the Government expert, Mr. Mead: Inas- 

 much as the code proposed by the California commis- 

 sion, whose published report was signed by Mr. F. M. 

 Newell and Mr. Mead, contained a section apparently 

 designed to prevent complications, and that identical 

 section was a part of the proposed Montana law, the 

 opposition had no foundation for its fears. That sec- 

 tion reads: "Sec. 5. Subject to Laws of Congress for 

 Storing Water: All rights to water flowing over, on 

 or across Government lands of the United States, and 

 all flood waters acquired under this act or previous 

 laws of the State shall be subject to any of the acts 

 of the Congress of the United States providing for the 

 storage, conservation and distribution of the flood or 

 other unappropriated waters of such streams for public 

 use, and the Government of the United States may, 

 in the interest of the public good, acquire right and title 

 to all or any part of the waters of any of the streams 

 of the State in the furtherance of anv such enactments 



of Congress, by paying to any owner of water rights 

 reasonable and just compensation therefor, to be ar- 

 rived at by agreement of the parties if possible ; if dot. 

 by condemnation proceedings, as provided by law." 

 Thus possible complications were guarded against. 



Instead of state control, Mr. Maxwell, in Novem- 

 ber, 1902, issue of Forestry and Irrigation, advocated 

 water users' associations for each drainage basin and 

 applied the term "Home Rule in Irrigation" to his plan. 

 His idea of "home rule," however, was that "Even' 

 drainage basin should do business with the National 

 Government as a unit," the water users of which "can 

 adopt any rules or regulations desired or approved by 

 the Secretary of the Interior." Now I submit, with 

 all deference to the gentleman, that such a plan is not 

 "home rule" but government of the water user from 

 and by the department at Wsahington. The term is 

 misleading and the plan is not practicable, expeditious, 

 or simple. For purpose of supervision under state 

 control the division by hydrographic or drainage basins 

 has been pursued in Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado. 

 The objection to Mr. Maxwell's plan of a water users' 

 association for each basin is that many of these basins 

 are hundreds of miles long and all the irrigators over 

 n vast area, with their conflicting interests, will not- 

 gather in a town meeting and agree upon an organiza- 

 tion and a representative to be sent to Washington. 

 But grant for argument that they did. How long 

 would Congress or any department listen to the troubles 

 of each drainage basin? Would or could Washington 

 officials bring order out of the confusion of thousands 

 of conflicting claims? If this method be applied to 

 the sixteen arid states there will be from sixty to 

 seventy-five drainage basins for attention. Who would 

 be served first? How much delay would there be? 

 What would be the expense for such long range ad- 

 judication and who would bear it? 



Remember there is involved recorded water rights 

 not yet adjudicated and unappropriated water in more 

 than a dozen states worth more than a hundred millions., 

 of dollars; for this liquid wealth there are thousands 

 and thousands of conflicting claims. What an oppor- 

 tunity for greedy claim agents would be created by an 

 attempt to adjudicate these claims and control a divi- 

 sion of the water from Washington. It would neces- 

 sitate a special department to do business with which 

 the individual or company would require an attornev 

 at so many dollars per claim. Would not the water 

 user "get off" at the door of a Washington claim agent ? 

 How many dollars and how much time would he ex- 

 pend? 



Contrast this with the method in Wyoming and 

 Nebraska, where the means of adjudication are brought 

 to the water user, the fee paid is less than $5.00, where 

 prior rights are protected, and peace prevails instead 

 of violence and litigation. Does not the results in 

 these states prove that justice, expedition, and satisfac- 

 tion are far more easily attained under state law than 

 by the proposed plan? 



It has been imagined that state codes meant much 

 political patronage with "corps of ditch tenders and 

 appointees." The fact is that under the Wyoming law 

 there is appointed a state engineer and superintendents 

 for each of four basins, a total of five. As there is 

 necessity these basins are subdivided into such water 

 districts as will best secure protection to claimants and 

 economical supervision on the part of the state; in 



