34 BULLETIN 1340, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEJCULTUEE 
of a growing economic pressure, have probably tended to a more 
economical use than would have resulted without them. 
STATUTES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 
Several States have placed a maximum limit upon the quantity of 
water which may be appropriated for irrigation purposes. Idaho, 
for example, allows no more than 1 cubic foot per second of normal 
flow to be diverted for each 50 acres of land, or 5 acre-feet per acre 
per annum to be diverted for storage purposes, unless it can be 
shown to the satisfaction of the department of reclamation or the 
court that a greater quantity is necessary. Nevada's provision is 
that the diversion for direct irrigation shall not exceed one one- 
hundredth cubic foot per second for each acre, measured where the 
main ditch enters or becomes adjacent to the land to be irrigated, 
due allowance for losses to be made by the State engineer in per- 
mitting additional diversions into the ditch; and for storage pur- 
poses, not over 4 acre-feet per acre stored in the reservoir, evapora- 
tion and transmission losses to be borne by the appropriator. The 
California law limits the appropriation for the irrigation of un- 
cultivated areas to 2y 2 acre-feet per acre, but leaves the amount of 
other appropriations to the discretion of the division of water 
rights, this provision not yet having been interpreted by the courts. 
Utah provides no statutory limitations, but states that ''beneficial 
use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of all rights to the 
use of water in this State." The Oregon law has a similar provision. 
To bring about a more economical use of water and thus to in- 
crease the duty, Nevada and Oregon have statutory provisions per- 
mitting water users to rotate in the use of the water to which they 
are collectively entitled. Utah, as a means of preventing waste, al- 
lows a determination or redetermination of water rights, in whole 
or in part, where it has been found that waste exists. 
Opinions cliifer as to the wisdom of enactments fixing the duty 
of water. Unquestionably a hard and fast rule is not wise, because 
of the great variation in water requirements not only in any State 
but even on many projects, so that a uniform allowance would work 
hardships in some cases and encourage waste in others. On the other 
hand, a maximum statutory allowance of, say, 3 acre-feet per acre 
would be found inadequate in most places for the irrigation of such 
crops as rice, yet much more than enough for certain other crops, and 
unless carefully administered might be construed as entitling an 
appropriator to 3 acre-feet per acre regardless of his requirements. 
Such a provision as that of Idaho leaves room for a showing in par- 
ticular cases that more than the maximum is necessary. If any 
allowance is made by statute, it should be put forth only as a guide 
and as an expression of public policy in restricting the unnecessary 
use of water, leaving the actual amount of the appropriation to be 
fixed by the State administrative body in accordance with the needs 
of the appropriator and the best interests of the public. 
State administrative regulations in allotting and distributing 
water are necessarily based upon the statutes, but are very important 
in governing the use of the appropriated waters. The discretion ex- 
ercised by the State officials in determining water requirements, 
where they are granted such discretion, may be far-reaching in 
