HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. 365 
Mr. Burxeson. On the cost of the different character of drainage? 
Mr. Mrap. Yes, sir. 
I believe that covers in a general way the lines of work we are 
carrying on. 
I have, however, omitted one feature, the studies of laws and insti- 
tutions relating to irrigation. The only new work that we inaugurated 
in that respect this year was a study of the interstate water right ques- 
tion, in conformity to a provision that was inserted in the appropria- 
tion bill last year, as to the rights of irrigation in riparian proprietors. 
Mr. Brooks. Is that interstate question becoming an important one 
in the irrigation regions? 
Mr. Mean. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Brooxrs. Why? 
Mr. Meap. It is becoming an important one, because as you exhaust 
streams and utilize them, it creates a shortage on both sides of the line 
and makes necessary an adjustment on many streams that was not neces- 
sary when there was little use of the water, and free water to people 
on both sides of the line. The matter is now in the Supreme Court of 
the United States. 
In the work that we undertook, before undertaking anything, we 
looked over the country, and this is the situation. The place where 
the riparian doctrine and where the rights of the irrigators come most 
directly in contact with each other is in streams that flow east from 
the Rocky Mountains. That seemed to be the best place to settle the 
question: We conferred with the governors and attorneys-general of 
Kansas and Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming, with the State engi- 
neers of the three States that have State engineers, and all of them 
welcomed this investigation most heartily, and all of them agreed as 
to the field where it would be most useful. 
Now, what we are doing is not taking up the question of a deter- 
mination of decisions, or studying the legal questions at all. We are 
simply gathering the facts as to what has been the effect of the diver- 
sion sd use of water on irrigation—just simply studying the physical 
conditions along those streams, so that whenever this question does 
come up there will be one concrete illustration of just what the con- 
ditions are. 
Mr. Brooxs. Is that the crux of the controversy between the 
States, as to the amount of diversion there has been in taking out the 
water higher up the stream ? 
Mr. Meap. Well, yes, that is part of it; but I think this is the 
view that we have of the importance of our work—that it would cer- 
tainly contribute to a right settlement of this matter if the people 
who have to decide upon it could know from an impartial source and 
from investigations that were carried on in a thorough way just ex- 
actly what the conditions were, and what effect irrigation did have on 
the application of these two doctrines and on the welfare of the people 
living on the streams. 
Mr. Scorr. Have you been called upon by representatives of the 
States of Colorado or Kansas for the results of these investigations? 
Mr. Mrap. No, sir. . 
Mr. Haucren. What are the experiment stations doing along this 
line in the different States? 
Mr. Meap. In all of the arid States but one they are cooperating 
