62 
by saying for one irrigation; and such an interpretation of "a limited 
time" is veryproper; anything less would be nothing; any thing more 
would l>e precluded by the clause "for the purpose of saving crops." 
When more than one irrigation is needed to save a crop, then that 
crop is not sufficiently advanced to be considered as in existence, or 
rather to have value sufficient to justify the upsetting of the status of 
the river to save it. 
It would not be wise to repeal the law. as was attempted during the 
last session of the Legislature, hut it should he so amended as to make 
it more definite in its phraseology; hut any such law must of neces- 
sity depend for its beneficial application upon the good judgment of 
the water officials. 
The laws passed by the legislature of 1901 were, one by Senator 
Clayton, providing penalties for not maintaining good head gates and 
rating Humes, the penalty being that the water could be shut out until 
the law was complied with. It also prohibits the storing of water 
when the same is required for direct irrigation. This section is hardly 
applicable as between reservoirs with rights senior to the ditches using 
the water direct. If the owners of a reservoir of old priority have 
enjoyed its use for years, it is unreasonable to suppose that a recent 
diteh can interfere with that use. The act further provides that reser- 
voirs situated on the bed of a stream through which a natural flow 
passes must have a survey made and its contour lines run. and must 
place a gauge rod therein to mark the depth of water in the reservoir. 
The second act provides that any interference with head gates or 
measuring boxes is a misdemeanor, "and that any person who shall 
be found using water taken through any such head gate so unlawfully 
interfered with shall prima facie he deemed guilty." This law makes 
it possible to convict water thieves without having to catch them in 
the act of tampering with the head gates. Heretofore convictions 
have been few, because it was often impossible to prove who individ- 
ually committed the act of raising the head gate. In its operation it 
should be a good law. 
The third law provides for the formation of irrigation districts, 
methods of holding elections, issuing bonds, etc. The law has had no 
test as yet. and no criticism of its effects, therefore, can be made. 
LITIGATION. 
On the Big Thompson nearly all the litigation has been by parties 
on the north side of the river against those on the south side. The 
Loudon and the Loveland and Greeley companies joined interests 
against the Handy and the Home Supply companies, the other and 
smaller ditches being drawn into the controversy. 
In the descriptions of the ditches attention has been called to some 
