STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. 55 



notion that we must have human nature reformed and all the State ma chin 

 ery perfected before anything is done toward the regulation of streams is 

 certainly erroneous. That any sort of system will remedy all these evils, 

 or entirely avert controversies, is not expected. No matter how efficient a 

 code of laws may be devised, or how honest and efficient their administra- 

 tion, there is certain to be friction because of the conflicting views created 

 by the unfortunate absence of definite control in the past. 



When Wyoming was admitted to statehood the water-right situation 

 did not differ greatly from that of California. The records were scattered 

 in the various counties; the claims were as extravagant, indefinite, and 

 valueless as those compiled in this investigation. The Wyoming irrigation 

 law of 1890 created a special tribunal called the board of control, of which 

 the State engineer was made ex officio president, and intrusted it with the 

 settlement of existing rights and the disposal of all unappropriated water. 

 The board began with a i-iver where controversies were acute and where 

 ajjpropriators were at war with each other. The river had not for several 

 years supplied the needs of imgators; hence no extravagant or speculative 

 rights could be recognized without depriving late appropriators of their 

 already scanty supply. At the outset the board determined to base all 

 rights to streams on two principles: Actual use was to be the basis of all 

 riffhts and the water was to be attached to the land rather than to ditches 

 or ditch owners. In doing this it placed itself squarely in opposition to the 

 doctrine which was most strenuoush' advocated and which was that appro- 

 priators had a vested right to the volume claimed in their recorded notices 

 of appropriation, whether or not this volume had been used. In order to 

 maintain its position the board had not only to know how and where water 

 was being used, but to be able to show to all those aff'ected by its decisions 

 the source and accuracy of its information. The problem was not simply to 

 satisfy its members that its decisions were lawful and right, but to convince 

 appropriators that its policy was both just and wise. This required first of 

 all a careful examination of the physical conditions along the stream. Each 

 ditch diverting water was surveyed and its capacity measured. The area 

 of the land it in-igated was determined, the flow of the river was gaged 

 from time to time during the season, and records kept of the ditches 

 which diverted this water. When these field investigations were completed 

 maps and tables were prepared which showed the location and size of 

 ditches, the land irrigated, and the measured flow of the stream. Equipped 

 with this information, the board was prepared to pass intelligently on the 

 claims of ap])ropriators. The preparation and submission of their proofs 



