22 Bulletin 67. 
at all times be under the supervision and control of the irrigation 
officers of the state. 
The 6th section (pp. 195-6) pertains principally to the duty 
of the owner of a reservoir situated upon or in the bed of any 
natural stream, to cause a survey to be made of the reservoir 
with contour lines for every vertical foot in depth, to be properly 
rated by the state engineer. In case of the owner failing to do 
what is required, the superintendent of irrigation (or the state 
engineer) is directed to refuse to permit the use of such reservoir. 
COMMENTS ON THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUPERINTENDENTS 
OF IRRIGATION. 
Evidently this office was created to relieve the state engineer 
of duties which otherwise might have been too onerous. It was 
deemed proper by the legislative department of the government 
to have a special officer in general charge of all the water com¬ 
missioners in a single division. The duties of a superintendent 
of irrigation plainly arrange themselves into two classes. First, 
the duty to protect senior priorities irrespective of district limits; 
second, to exercise general supervisory control over all water 
commissioners in their ordinary discharge of duties. We will 
discuss these two powers separately. 
1 st. The power to enforce senior priorities from a main 
stream as against junior priorities from a tributary of such stream 
in a different water district, is absolutely necessary to carry out 
the doctrine of priority of appropriation, since the water of a 
main stream is practically the result of accretions from its tribu¬ 
taries. Before the enactment of the statute of 1887, there was no 
proper machinery through the regular water officials to enforce 
this requirement of the law. Even after the enactment of the 
statute, little was done until the matter received consideration 
by the Supreme Court in 1896. It is true that prior to that time, 
in the case of Strickler vs. Colorado Springs, 16 Colo. 61, re¬ 
ported in 1891, the Supreme Court had declared that any differ¬ 
ent doctrine would wipe out the principle of priorities upon which 
our whole system is based. As said by Judge Hayt in that case, 
"To say now that an appropriator from the main stream is sub¬ 
ject to subsequent appropriation from its tributaries would be 
the overthrow of the entire doctrine.” 
Still it was not until the decision of the Supreme Court in 
the case of The Farmers Independent Ditch Company vs. The 
Agricultural Ditch Company, 22 Colo. 513, handed down May 
18, 1896, that the legislation of 1887 had judicial construction. 
In that case the court, by Chief Justice Hayt, used the following 
language: 
