53 
law relative to the filing of claims to water and adjudications of rights, 
though the necessity of some definite determination of the rights of 
different claimants had been recognized for sometime prior to thai 
year. As soon as a scarcity began to be felt the difficulty of dividing 
the water and the necessity <»i" a (dear statement of each consumer's 
right forced some action by the legislature, which up to thai time had 
seemed unable to appreciate the importance of early action or unwill- 
ing to take the initial steps. There was a belief also that the ditch 
itself was* evidence of a right; that water having once been used on 
land thereby becomes appurtenant to it. It was thought that a deed 
to the land conveyed the right to the water which had been used 
thereon. A series of years with abundant flow encouraged the irri- 
gation of a good deal of land, but when these were followed at length 
by a year of small ilow the necessity of depriving some oik 4 of water 
forced the establishment of a rule whereby this could be done. In 
tin 1 early days water was abundant for the land irrigated, and the 
causes of a short supply were, as stated a slow decrease in the late 
tlow, from deforestation on the one hand, and on the other a con- 
stantly growing demand for later water for the rapidly increasing 
acreage of alfalfa and crops other than grain. The cultivation of 
great areas of mesa lands, like that begun by the Union Colony at 
Greeley in 1870, was of course the greatest factor in calling attention 
to the short supply. 
Op to the time of the passage of the law of 1879 many of the later 
users contended that the water must be pro rated in accordance with 
the old law of 1861, amended in 1870. This law provided that the 
county judge should appoint three commissioners, whose duty it was 
to "apportion in a just and equitable proportion a certain amount of 
said water upon certain or alternate weekly days to different Locali- 
ties." In 1879 the legislature passed the first bill intended to meet 
the conditions existing. Exclusive jurisdiction was by this law vested 
in the district court whose territory embraced the water district. 
"But when the water district extended into more than one county, 
the court of the county in which tin 4 first regular term after the 1st 
day of December of each year shall soonest occur shall be the proper 
court." and such court retained jurisdiction to final settlement. The 
district judge was required to appoint a referee to take testimony, who 
should issue a notice stating the time and place where he would hold 
court, notifying aU interested parties to be present and to submit 
proofs of claims or present objection- to the claims of others. The 
referee could call and examine witnesses, and he submitted his find- 
ings to the court for final adjudication. Those refusing to present 
their claims were barred as against those submitting proof. Appeal 
from the decree of the judge could be made within two years, and the 
court would thereupon order a rehearing. 
