THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



SOS 



CORRESPONDENCE 



The following letter was recently received from a 

 Montana subscriber and a copy of same was referred to 

 Messrs Clarence T. Johnson, State Engineer of Wyo- 

 ming, and James Stephenson, Jr., State Engineer of 

 Idaho. The letter from our subscriber as well as the 

 replies of Messrs. Johnson and Stephenson are re- 

 produced herewith : 



THE IRRIGATION AGE, 



Chicago, 111. 

 GENTLEMEN : 



In a recent issue of the AGE you requested that questions 

 on irrigation law be sent you. There is a matter about which 

 I woujd like some information and if it comes under the head 

 to which you refer would be pleased to have a reply to same 

 through the columns of your paper. The matter is as fol- 

 lows: 



I own land under a ditch built by a private concern, 



the dimension of irrigation canals built under the provisions 

 of the Carey Act has been received. 



I am satisfied that your correspondent misunderstands con- 

 ditions. Wherever it can be shown that a canal is not large 

 enough to deliver the water needed for the land, it will be 

 made large enough before the canal system is turned over to 

 the settlers. But one Carey Act Canal has been accepted 

 by the state and turned over to the settlers, and I know of 

 no instance, in fact, can conceive of no occasion for accepting 

 .a canal in sections. 



The question of the discharge of a canal can be so easily 

 determined that it is rather a ridiculous thing to comment 

 adversely or favorably regarding the same unless one has 

 some technical information as a basis for statements made. If 

 your correspondent had said that from the measurements made 

 it would seem that the canal is not large enough, his letter 

 would indicate that he was seeking the truth. The fact as 

 to whether the canal is or is not large enough is a matter to 

 be determined by actual measurements. I do not care ho* 

 competent a judge a man may be, his estimates are worth 

 but little until he knows something about the actual dis- 

 charge measurements of the canal in question. It is the busi- 

 ness of the state to see to it that the canals are built of ample 

 size. As a matter of ordinary business judgment all settlers 

 should satisfy themselves that this work has been accom- 

 plished. If any settler has a doubt as to the measurements and 

 computations made by the state he should hire some person, 



No. 7. Building the Waste-Gates, Tri-State Canal, Nebraska. 



under the provisions of the Carey Act. The ditch was built 

 in three divisions. The first and second, I understand, has 

 been approved and accepted by State Engineer. The third is 

 to be completed by January 1, 1909. Notwithstanding the re- 

 port of State Engineer it is the opinion of competent judges 

 that the ditch is not nearly large enough to water land it 

 covers. When all is under cultivation, and it is stated that 

 when the ditch is all completed and approved by the state 

 there could be no recourse on the Ditch Company. What I 

 would like to know is if it can be shown that the ditch is not 

 large enough to carry water to the amount their contracts 

 call for for all the land the ditch covers, can they be com- 

 pelled to increase it to such capacity before the state accepts 

 it, and before they turn it over to the land owners. Also, how 

 would we go about to secure such information and compel 

 them to furnish the work as per contract? 



If you can give the desired information it will be appre- 

 ciated. 



, Mont., July 7, 1908. 



REPLY OF CLARENCE T. JOHNSON, STATE ENGINEER OF WYOMING. 



Cheyenne, Wyo., July 18, 1908. 

 THE IRRIGATION AGE, 



Chicago. 

 DEAR SIR : 



Your letter of July 16th, enclosing an inquiry regarding 



competent to make measurements, to check those made by the 

 State Engineer. 



Sincerely yours, 



CLARENCE T. JOHNSON, 



State Engineer. 



REPLY OF JAMES STEPHENSON, JR., STATE ENGINEER OF IDAHO. 



THE IRRIGATION AGE, Boise, Idaho, July 23, 1908. 



Chicago, 111. 

 SIR: 



Replying to yours of the 16th inst., would say that the ac- 

 ceptance of this portion of diversion works under the Carey 

 Act project, does not constitute an acceptance of the whole, 

 and that before the works are finally accepted and turned over 

 to the settlers the State Land Board requires the company to 

 prove, unconditionally, that the works are completed in ac- 

 cordance with the company's contract with the state. 



In other words, that State Land Board fully protects the 

 rights of the entrymen. 



Very truly yours, 



JAMES STEPHENSON, JR., 



State Engineer. 



Send $2.50 for The Irrigation Atfe 

 1 ye&r. and the Primer of Irrigation 



