71 
however, the supreme court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were 
not parties to the injunction suit, though having knowledge of the 
same, and thai " if a failure of one diverting watei from a stream to 
protest every time a shortage in his supply is occasioned by another 
withdrawing water to which he is not entitled is to be construed as 
acquiescence amounting to abandonment priorities would be of little 
value." Also the fact that a considerable loss in volume would occur 
through evaporation and percolation was not sufficient reason for 
depriving the lower ditches of their rights of priority. 
This case confirms the practice and belief that rights on tributaries 
and on the main stream, though in different districts of the same divi- 
sion, are subject to prior rights pi all other ditches of the division. 
COMMENTS. 
Ln looking over the water conditions in Colorado, examining the 
causes of the legal contests and difficulties of administration, no one 
thing seems to be entirely responsible, each succeeding cause or error 
depending on what had preceded and on what followed to produce the 
full measure of difficulties. Each mistake seemingly had a chance of 
correction, but, instead of a correction, only additional errors were 
made. 
First, the absence of records, filings of statements in the early days 
was a had beginning, second, the laws of 1879 and 1881 relative to 
decrees fell short of their intention to supply the deficiency in records; 
third, the adjudication of water rights failed to eliminate the errors 
made possible by the incompleteness of the laws of 1879 and L881 and 
added others; fourth, subsequent litigation perpetuated and exagger- 
ated these errors. 
The law relative to filings passed in 1881 has a few faults — namely, 
that it came almost twenty years too late to do much good, and there 
is no provision for an official examination and acceptance of the filing-. 
and that the courts have held it to be unconstitutional in that non- 
compliance therewith can not deprive an appropriator of his constitu- 
tional right to the use of water. 
Filings are of little value except as evidence of time when the claim 
was made and of intention. Filed in the county recorder's office, they 
are not indexed with reference to the land covered, and nowhere 
appear in the abstracts of the land. There is no method in use for 
abstracting water rights, and it is impossible to determine who the 
owners are or to what land the water is applied. This looseness of 
the record of ownership of decrees, as well as undecreed ditches, ha- 
led to much litigation. Not only is the irrigator constantly threatened 
by the dangers incident to water supply and control, but is sur- 
rounded by an atmosphere of doubt as to the exact status of his title 
and the rights upon which the success or failure of his efforts depend. 
