302 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



which plaintiff's ditch headed, and plaintiff, a junior appro- 

 priator, sought to appropriate water from the 'tributary 

 stream at a distance from its mouth, claiming that the water 

 in the tributary stream, if suffered to flow, would not reach 

 defendant's headgate on the main stream, and hence its diver- 

 sion would not injure defendant, the burden was on plaintiff 

 to show such facts, as it is presumed that the waters of a 

 tributary stream less the evaporation, if not interfered with, 

 will reach the main stream either by surface or subterranean 

 flow. Pctterson v. Payne, Water Commissioner. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado. 95 Pacific 301. 



No RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DESTRUCTION OF STREAM CURRENT. 



The right to appropriate water from a stream is not an 

 unrestricted right, but must be exercised with regard to the 

 rights of the public and other appropriators, and a single 

 appropriator who has adopted as a means of raising water 

 to his land water wheels operated by the current of the stream 

 has no right of action because of the construction of a dam 

 below him designed for the irrigation of a large area of land, 

 the property of many owners, which destroys the current of 

 the stream at the place of his location, and makes it neces- 

 sary for him to adopt some other means of diverting the water 

 off his land. Schodde v. Twin Falls Land and Water Co. 

 Circuit Court of Appeals. 161 Federal 43. 



WESTERN SETTLERS FACING TROUBLE. 



(FROM THE ST. LOUIS GLOBE-DEMOCRAT.) 



In the West they are very much stirred up over 

 the proposition to take from the unreserved, unap- 

 propriated public domain reserved for settlers a vast 

 area of 300,000,000 acres and place it in the Forest 

 Service and lease it out for fencing and grazing for the 

 big cattle barons and others whose interests are being 

 crowded by encroachments of the homesteaders. 



This would shut out settlers from a pretty big strip 

 of country well, equivalent to an area 200 miles wide 

 and over 2,000 miles long. This land is not included in 

 the lands concerned in the regulation of streams or con- 

 servation of timber supply. This vast area has never 

 been included in the Forest Reserves; it is part of the 

 public domain awaiting settlement. 



The agricultural lands of the public domain belong 

 not to the people of the West alone; they belong to the 



No. 6. Views showing construction of Tri-State Canal. 



PRIOR APPROPRIATION. 



A grantor in 1890 diverted and applied to the irrigation 

 of land adjacent thereto all the waters of a creek and con- 

 tinued to use the same until January 1, 1891, when his grantee 

 moved upon the land and used the water thereafter. A 

 second proprietor diverted the water of the same creek in 

 1893, and used the same until 1897, though admitting that at 

 all times there was not enough water to supply the grantee's 

 land. Held, that the grantee, being the prior appropriator, 

 had a right to the use of all the water necessary to the irriga- 

 tion of his land, and that the second appropriator had only 

 the right to use the excess of water for irrigating his land. 



Wellington v. Beck. Supreme Court of Colorado, 95 

 Pacific 297. 



Send $2*50 for The Irrigation 



Age one year and 

 The Primer of Irrigation 



citizens of every state in the Union. Anybody may go 

 out there, take up a homestead of 160 acres, and make 

 a home in the manner the law specifies. 



The act of June 4, 1897, which set aside timbered 

 areas and mountain watersheds for Forest Reserves 

 specifically and distinctly forbade the including of lands 

 good only for other purposes. The idea was that the 

 interest of the settlers should have first consideration. 

 Land unavailable for timber protection or reforestration 

 or for conserving the flow of streams was to be kept 

 open for farms and homes and communities. 



Under the proposed "leasing policy" any big cattle 

 magnate may lease and fence up for ten years as much 

 as 10,000 acres ; his friends may lease next door to him 

 10,000 more, and another friend the next, and so on. 



It is not likely that any settler would care to 

 undertake the responsibility of taking a family upon a 

 homestead within such inclosure; hi life would be a 

 sultry one at best. 



But the settler is not likely to have this opportu- 

 nity, for if the leasehold has had one penny over $100 

 spent on it by the cattle owner (which amount is easily 

 covered by the fence), the lessee has a right to debar 

 the settler from entering. 



