DEPAKTMENT OF THE INTEKIOE

WATER-SUPPLY

AND

IRRIGATION PAPERS

OF THE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

No. 23

WATEK-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF THE BIGHORN 

MOUNTAINS. MEAD

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 

1899
I IRRIGATION REPORTS.

The following list contains titles and brief descriptions of the principal reports 

relating to water supply and irrigation, prepared by the United States Geological

Survey since 1890:

1890.

First Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1890; octavo, 123 pp.

Printed as Part II, Irrigation of the Tenth Annual Report of the United States Geological 

Survey, 1888-89. Contains a statement of the origin of the Irrigation Survey, a preliminary 

report on the organization and prosecution of the survey of the arid lands for purposes of 

irrigation, and report of work done during 1890.

1891.

Second Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1891; octavo, 395 pp.

Published as Part II, Irrigation, of the Eleve_nth Annual Report of the United States 

Geological Survey, 1889-90. Contains a description of the hydrography of the arid region 

and of the engineering operations carried on by the Irrigation Survey during 1890; also the 

statement of the Director of the Survey to the House Committee on Irrigation, and other 

papers, including a bibliography of irrigation literature. Illustrated by 29 plates and 4 

figures.

Third Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1891; octavo, 576 pp.

Printed as Part II of the Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 

1890-91. Contains " Report upon the location and survey of reservoir sites during the fiscal

year ended June 30,1891," by A. H. Thompson; "Hydrography of the arid regions," by 

F. H. Newell; "Irrigation in India," by Herbert M. Wilson. Illustrated by 93 plates and 

190 figures.

Bulletins of the Eleventh Census of the United States upon irrigation, prepared by 

F. H. Newell; quarto.

No. 35, Irrigation in Arizona; No. 60, Irrigation in New Mexico; No. 85, 

Irrigation in Utah; No. 107, Irrigation in Wyoming; No. 153, Irrigation in 

Montana; No. 157, Irrigation in Idaho; No. 163, Irrigation in Nevada; No. 178, 

Irrigation in Oregon; No. 193, Artesian wells for irrigation; No. 198, Irrigation in Washington.

1893.

Irrigation of western United States, by F. H. Newell; extra census bulletin No. 

23, September 9, 1892; quarto, 22 pp.

Contains tabulations showing the total number, average size, etc, of irrigated holdings, 

the total area and average size of irrigated farms in the subhumid regions, the percentage 

of number of farms irrigated, character of crops, value of irrigated lands, the average cost 

of irrigation, the investment and profits, together with a resume of the water supply and 

a description of irrigation by artesian wells. Illustrated by colored maps showing the 

location and relative extent of the irrigated areas.

1893.

Thirteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1891-92, Part 

III, Irrigation, 1893; octavo, 486 pp.

Consists of three papers: "Water supply for irrigation," by P. H. Newell; "American 

irrigation engineering" and "Engineering results of the Irrigation Survey," by Herbert 

M. Wilson; " Construction of topographic maps and selection and survey of reservoir sites," 

by A. H. Thompson. Illustrated by 77 plates and 119 figures.

A geological reconnoissance in central Washington, by Israel Cook Russell, 1893; 

octavo, 108 pp., 15 plates. Bulletin No. 108 of the United States Geological 

Survey; price, 15 cents.

Contains a description of the examination of the geologic structure in and adjacent to 

the drainage basin of Yakima River and the great plains of the Columbia to the east of this 

area, with special reference to the occurrence of artesian waters.

1894.

Report on agriculture by irrigation in the western part of the United States at the 

Eleventh Census, 1890, by F. H. Newell, 1894; quarto, 283 pp.

Consists of a general description of the condition of irrigation in the United States, the 

area irrigated, cost of works, their value and profits; also describes the water supply, the 

value of water, of artesian wells, reservoirs, and other details: then takes up each State 

and Territory in order, giving a general description of the condition of agriculture by irrigation, and discusses the physical conditions and local peculiarities in each county.

Fourteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1892-93, in two 

parts; Part II, Accompanying papers, 1894; octavo, 597 pp.

Contains papers on "Potable waters of the eastern United States," by W J McGee; 

"Natural mineral waters of the United States," by A. C. Peale; "Results of stream measurements," by F. H. Newell. Illustrated by maps and diagrams.

IRR23

(Continued on third page of cover. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

WATER-SUPPLY

IEEIGATION PAPEKS

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

23

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1899
UNITED STATES (GEOLOGICAL SUEYET

CHARLES D. WALCOT1* DIKECTOK

WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS

BIGHORN MOUNTAINS

ELWOOD MEA.D

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1899
CONTENTS.

Letter of transmittal -_--__.------_---._---_--.-------.. ...._..-..--....-. 9

Introduction ...--_._.____...._ ._.__._._........__-___.._-.-_..---_----.. 11

Num ber of appropriations and acreage reclaimed .......................... 12

Value of water rights _--_.-...___________.___._._.__.______..__.__-__.._. 13

Board of control......_______________..___..____._-..-_.._..._..._._._-._. 14

Water divisions and districts ........................--..-----...._--..... 17

Appropriations in Division II_........................-..._.--..--..--.-.. 18

District 2, Crazy Woman Creek..................................._... 18

Decree of 1889......................-..-.-.--..-....-.-.......... 18

Objections to the decree. .......................................... 21

Excessive amounts claimed _..__...-.-..-.- ..-..--..--------..--. 24

Districts.---.-.--.---.--....---....-. ....--..----......-....---..--. 28

Flow of Clear Creek ............................. ................ 28

Early rights and their adjudication..______,__.__._____._..__..____ 31

Diversion across divides.---------- -..--... ...._......._..--.--...- 32

Prairie Dog Creek ._....................-...-.-..-...-..-....-..-. 35

Summary of rights to water _.._____......_-..-._.--._.-._.-_..-._ 36

Allowance for loss of water in transmission .._.-_---.-__--...__--. 38 

Ownership in ditch not necessary to the acquirement of a water

right _.._..._.__.__-...._..-....._..-....__.__-._..._-....-._-.. 40

District4- ........................... ................. ............. 43

District 5.-.......-.....-.--...--.--.--.---.---.-..-..--.-..--......-. 45

Little Tongue River .............................. _.._..-..-...... 49

Appropriations in Division III ............................................ 50

District 6..-.. ........................................................ 50

Order establishing priorities and amounts of appropriations of water

from No Wood River and its tributaries ........_............-.. 50

Reservoirs.- ---.-----.-.---..,..-.-.---.-.---.-.---------...--.-..-----. 55

Administrative questions..-.-.-..--...'---.----..-..-..-...-_.----.-..--.. 58

Index....... _.............. ....... .................................. 61

5
ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page. 

PLATE I, A, North side of Cloud Peak; B, Bighorn Mountains as seen

from Buffalo, Wyoming................_.................... 11

II. Piney Creek below outlet of Cloud Peak Lake..__.__.-----.._-_. 32

III. Reservoir sites on Piney Creek: A, At Elk Lake; B, At Mead

Lake --........_-................................... ........ 34

IV. North slope of Massacre Hill, illustrating erosion in ditches

from Piney Creek...... ....._............._---.---_-.-...,. 36

V. Timber flume in the canyon of Tongue River........._......... 44

VI. Beginning of dam at north end of Dome Lake reservoir......... 54

VII. Outlet of Kearney Lake reservoir site, on North Piney Creek... 58 

FIG. 1. Location of water districts in portions of Divisions II and III...... 17

2. Irrigation systems on Clear Creek and tributaries .....^............ 29

3. Discharge of Clear Creek, near Buffalo, Wyoming, for 1894,1896,

and 1897... .........._........................................ 31

4. Ditches diverting water from Piney Creek across Massacre Hill

divide to Prairie Dog Creek..... ...-..-...--,-.-,_..--..---..-.. 35

5. Location of ditches on tributaries of Tongue River, Division II, district 4.......................................................... 44

6. Location of ditches on North Fork of Tongue River, Division II,

district 5. ................... .................. ................. 46

7. Dome Lake reservoir.----..-...-.----...-..--.-. ..--.--._-.-_._.- 56

8. Lakes at head of Piney and Q-oose creeks .-.------------.----.-.-_. 57

7
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

DIVISION OF HYDROGRAPHY,

Washington, October 28, 1898.

SIR : I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript for a 

paper entitled Water-Right Problems of the Bighorn Mountains, by 

Prof. Elwood Mead, State engineer of Wyoming. This paper calls 

particular attention to the complications arising in the distribution 

of water as a result of the haphazard construction of small irrigation 

ditches. The problems encountered in this region are typical of those 

which are to be met in nearly every State of the West, or which will 

be met in the near future. The difficulties found in the area described 

are accentuated by the diversion of water from one stream across 

divides into other natural drainage lines, thus connecting and greatly 

complicating the water rights of one individual with those of others. 

The calling of public attention to these conditions will go far toward 

arousing enlightened sentiments in behalf of more comprehensive 

laws in other States and should bring needed support to the efforts of 

officials in their attempts to distribute equitably the waters of the 

flowing streams.

Very respectfully, F. H. NEWELL,

Hydrographer in Charge. 

Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT,

Director United States Geological Survey.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 23 PL. I

A. NORTH SIDE OF CLOUD PEAK.

B. BIGHORN MOUNTAINS AS SEEN FROM BUFFALO, WYOMING.
WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF THE BIGHORN MOUNTAINS.

ByELWooD MEAD.

INTRODUCTION.

The Bighorn Range is the most impressive feature in the landscape 

of northern Wyoming, and its scenic beanties are made the more 

attractive by the striking contrast they afford to the surrounding 

region. The traveler from the East or the South finds the clear, cold, 

perennial streams which flow from its snow-clad summits a grateful 

relief from the alkaline pools or dry sand channels which have to be 

largely relied on when journeying toward them. The lofty and rugged pinnacles of Cloud Peak (shown in PI. I, A) are made all the 

more commanding because the bad-land hills, which form the summit 

of the Cheyenne watershed, are so commonplace and unattractive. 

West of the range is the Bighorn Basin, the lowest and most arid 

section of the State, where the dusty roads and gray stretches of 

sagebrush make a traveler look with longing at the snow-crowned, 

forest-clad slopes of the mountain barrier to the east.

In the arid States mountains, not plains, control agricultural development, and this isolated barrier, which rises near the middle of the 

northern boundary and extends southeast nearly to the center of the 

State, has done more to people the northern half of Wyoming than all 

other influences combined. Without it the section, now gridiron ed 

with ditches and supporting about one-fourth the population of the 

State, would be an open range supporting a few migratory flocks of 

sheep and herds of cattle. The latent wealth of the few hundred 

square miles of rocky, barren, and almost unoccupied land surface, 

over 8,000 feet above sea level, is far greater than that of any equal 

area in the valley below. This region gathers and stores the moisture 

which alone gives value to the land below. The perennial streams 

thereby created have, in their diversion and use, given employment 

to more people, attracted the investment of more capital, and created 

more problems to tax the wisdom of the lawmakers than has all the 

unimproved unirrigated farming land in the State.

The ease and cheapness with which the streams can be diverted, 

the fertility of the soil, and the exceptional value of the surrounding 

grazing land have made this section an attractive location for the home11
12 WATEE-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHOEN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

seeker of limited means. It is a region of small ditches and individual 

appropriators of water. On the eastern slope appropriation began 

before there were any laws governing the recording or establishment 

of rights thereto, while the isolation of the early settlers made them 

disregard or give little heed to water-right problems until the needs of 

users began to exceed the available supply; since then the multitude 

of rights, resulting from the haphazard location of ditches, has made 

a satisfactory settlement of many of these problems unusually difficult. Before discussing these problems a brief review will be given 

of the progress made in the twenty years which have elapsed since 

Manlius Redmond, a settler on Clear Creek, built the first ditch and 

became the pioneer farmer of the northern half of the State.

At that time the nearest railway station in the State was Rock 

Creek, on the Union Pacific, nearly 300 miles away. There was not 

a flour mill in the State, and the long, hazardous, and expensive trip 

necessary to secure the plow which turned the first furrow and the 

food for the men who worked on it added greatly to its cost. Reclaiming the desert under such conditions had many drawbacks, and the 

earlier ditches were of the crudest and simplest character. There 

was no attempt at any comprehensive projects. Each irrigator was 

a law to himself. Cooperative ditches or canals were rare exceptions. This explains the large number of ditches of record, and is the 

cause of many of the obstacles to the satisfactory division of water 

which confront those charged with this duty.

NUMBER OF APPROPRIATIONS AND ACREAGE RECLAIMED.

The records of the State engineer's office show that there are 1,051 

adjudicated rights to the water flowing out of these mountains. 

There are also 269 claims which have been recorded and approved, 

but not adjudicated. In addition there are probably 100 ditches 

using water for which no claim has been filed. The adjudicated 

rights describe 139,478 acres of land to which these rights are attached 

in the orders of the board of control establishing them, and there are 

appropriations from Crazy Woman Creek aggregating 925.25 secondfeet where the land irrigated is not described. Four fiour mills have 

rights to water for power purposes aggregating 324.50 second-feet, 

and the several cities and towns of this region have adjudicated 

rights for power and domestic purposes amounting altogether to 80.6 

second-feet.

Along the northern end of the range some promising placer fields 

have been discovered, and rights to 137.6 second-feet have been 

acquired with which to work them. The total volume of the adjudicated rights (3,455.4 second-feet) is in excess of the low-water discharge 

of the streams against which they are held, but is below the maximum 

discharge, so that the securing of a stable and adequate water supply 

for many of the irrigators holding adjudicated rights is a question of
MEAD-] VALUE OP WATER RIGHTS. 13

storage. While all of the rights for irrigation, established by the board 

of control, are based on State surveys of the ditches and on sworn 

statements of the acreage irrigated by the appropriates, there is no 

question that these .statements are somewhat in excess of the truth. 

Irrigation and reclamation are elastic terms. Spreading water over 

land to increase the growth of grass for pasturage purposes is irrigation 

and is so held by the board of control, but it is not the complete reclamation that is accomplished by cultivation. The tendency to augment 

the acreage actually watered is so common as to lead to the belief that 

it is unconscious. In the absence of exaggeration so gross as to 

constitute an injustice to other users, such a claim usually passes without protest unless it includes land which the State engineer's surveys 

show to be not susceptible of irrigation. The total acreage irrigated 

is, therefore, below the figures before given. A deduction of 10 per 

cent for exaggerated acreages and for areas which have only a surplus or flood-water supply would not be excessive, and would leave 

125,000 acres as the actual area irrigated under rights established by 

the board of control. This is more than half the acreage given as 

irrigated in the entire State by the Tenth Census.

It is impossible to speak with equal certainty regarding the acreage irrigated under appropriations approved by the State engineer's 

office, but which have not yet been established by order of the board 

of control. In making a summary of these rights from the records of 

the engineer's office, all canceled permits, or those which have not 

complied with the requirements of the State law, have been excluded. 

This disposes of all the speculative filings which were made prior to 

1894, during the time that no fee was required for the examination 

and record of applications to appropriate water. Since that time the 

stringent regulations governing the preparation of these filings have 

made applications so expensive that the tendency to make these for 

speculative purposes has almost disappeared. While the applications 

for permits recently approved do not represent actual utilization, 

they do represent projects based on reliable surveys, which are being 

carried out by people who are in earnest and who have sufficient investment in the work to make its completion probable. This is more 

nearly true of the appropriation of water from the streams of this region 

than of any other section of the State, as there are no large projects. 

These recorded and approved permits describe 214,000 acres of land 

for which irrigation appropriations are claimed, and 34 rights to water 

for power and domestic purposes.

VALUE OF WATER RIGHTS.

The value of the rights to the water which fills these ditch.es and fertilizes the land under them is an interesting subject for consideration. 

That they give to both ditches and land whatever value they have is 

unquestioned, because an empty ditch and an arid plain are alike
14 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

worthless. But while the right to water gives to the land whatever 

value it has, it does not make all values alike. Cost of maintaining 

ditches, ease of distributing water, fertility of the soil when irrigated, 

and the value and extent of the contiguous range are elements which 

have their influence. The fact that transfers of these rights have not 

thus far been recognized by the irrigation authorities of Wyoming 

has prevented any transactions of this character, so that we have to 

go to surrounding States for statistics on this subject. A recent sale 

of a right to 78 second-feet in one of the streams of northern Colorado 

is perhaps the best illustration of the present value of this form of 

property. In this sale nothing was sold but the right to take water 

from the stream. The ditches and lands by which it was conducted 

remained in the possession of the original holders. The right was 

moved several miles from its original location and required another 

ditch for the diversion of the water, and yet sold for a little more than 

$250 per second-foot. Its value was also lessened by the fact that 

the purchasers knew that the sale would be contested and that the 

expense of litigation to establish the legality of the transfer would 

have to be paid by them. The price paid, therefore, was far below 

what the property would have brought had the sellers been able to 

give an unquestioned title to the property, and is not, I think, above 

the value of an unquestioned right in the Bighorn Mountains. If 

this is true, the value of the adjudicated rights to the water of this 

range is already over $1,000,000. That this is destined to be greatly 

augmented in the near future is beyond question. The commercial 

importance of the water rights, therefore, makes their legality and the 

measures devised for their enforcement a subject of great economic 

interest.

BOARD OF CONTROL.

Under the constitution of Wyoming the board of control is intrusted 

with the supervision and control of all public waters of the State and 

of their appropriation, diversion, and distribution. Its administrative 

powers are therefore very broad. It has not only to determine 

rights to streams, but to enforce those rights afterwards. It has five 

members. These are the State engineer, who is president, and the 

four division superintendents. At the outset the board endeavored 

to outline clearly and definitely its views of what was necessary to 

complete or perfect a title to water, and so to simplify the methods of 

taking proof as to enable all water users to know what was required 

and to prepare and submit it at the least possible outlay. In pursuance of these views the board adopted and published the following 

governing principles:

1. In order to constitute a valid appropriation the water must have 

been used for some beneficial purpose, and in the case of appropriation for irrigation the water must have actually been applied to the 

land.
MEAD.] BOARD OF CONTROL. 15

2. The amount of an appropriation is governed by the volume used 

and by the requirements of this use in the case of appropriations 

for irrigation, by the needs of the land reclaimed.

3. Where reasonable diligence is shown in the construction of 

ditches and utilizing water, the appropriation dates from the beginning of work on the ditch, the survey to be considered as part of such 

work; where reasonable diligence is not shown, the appropriation 

dates from the utilization of the water.

4. Priority of appropriation gives priority of right, except in the 

case of appropriations made between 1888 and 1891, during which 

time the law made appropriation for domestic use a preferred 

priority.

5. Appropriations for irrigation are restricted to 1 cubic foot per second for each 70 acres irrigated. While this does not necessarily 

apply to lands reclaimed before the enactment of the State law, no 

appropriation for a larger amount has been made, because in all 

cases so far considered this volume has appeared ample.

6. Transfers of rights to water made in advance of any adjudication, either by the courts or by .the board, are not recognized, the 

reason being that parties had not such ownership as would enable 

them to give valid title to the water sold. No transfers involving 

changes in location or character of use have been recognized.

As the operation of these principles is uniform, and as the facts on 

which any appropriation rests are in all cases the same, it was possible to prepare a blank form of proof for the guidance of irrigators, 

and in that way to simplify both the labor of preparing proofs and of 

the board in their subsequent examination. The following is the 

form adopted:

PROOF OF THE APPROPRIATION OF WATER.

From , Division No. . 

State your name.

1. Post-office.

2. State the use to which the water has been applied.

3. State the means of diversion employed.

4. If through a ditch, state its name.

5. State (a) the date of the survey of the ditch or other distributing works 

through which the water claimed is diverted; (6) the date when the construction of such ditch was begun and when completed.

6. If any enlargements were made, state the date when begun and the date 

when completed.

7. State the dimensions of the ditch as originally constructed and as enlarged, 

and if measured by the county surveyor under the provisions of the act of 1886, 

give the results of such measurements.

8. State the name of person, association of persons, or corporation who built the 

ditch or canal, and the name or names of its present owners.

9. If water is claimed for irrigation, give the legal subdivisions of land owned 

or controlled by you for which an appropriation is claimed.

10. State the nature of your title to the above-described land: and if not owned 

by you, give the name of the owner an4 the nature of the possessory right which 

you exercise.
16 WATER-BIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

11. State the year when water was first used for irrigation or other beneficial 

purposes, and by whom.

12. If for irrigation, give the number of acres watered the first year, giving 

the legal subdivisions on which used and, as near as may be, the acres irrigated in 

each subdivision.

13. State the number of acres watered each subsequent year, and give the legal 

subdivisions on which the water was used and, as near as may be, the acres irrigated in each legal subdivision.

14. State the number of acres irrigated from said ditch in 189 , and give the 

legal subdivisions on which water was used and, as near as may be, the acres irrigated in each subdivision.

15. State the acreage said ditch is capable of watering, give the legal subdivisions of land which it can be made to irrigate, and state who owns said land.

16. State your proportionate interest in said ditch.

(16) The plat prepared by the State engineer is hereby accepted as showing 

correctly the location of the ditch and the land which can be irrigated therefrom. 1

17. When does your irrigation season begin and when does it end?

18. If water is used for other purposes than irrigation, state the nature of such 

use and the time when such use began.

19. How much water is required for such purpose?

20. During what months is the water used?

21. Have you or any other claimant of said appropriation filed a claim to water 

in the office of the county clerk? If so, give date of filing and the name of the 

party or parties interested in said claim.

22. Have you had sufficient water each year since the use for which an appropriation is claimed began?

23. If not, state the years of scarcity, the months when the supply was insufficient, and the reason of such scarcity.

I hereby certify that the foregoing affidavit was read to the affiant in my presence before he signed his name thereto; that said affiant is to me personally known 

(or has been satisfactorily identified before me by ), and that I verily 

believe him to be a credible person and the person he represents himself to be; 

and that this affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me at , on this 

 day of , 189-.

Division Superintendent.

DEAR SIR: Your attention is called to the inclosed proof of appropriation. It is 

the intention of the law and also of the board of control to make the adjudication 

of rights to the use of water as inexpensive to the appropriator as possible. Consequently you are requested to cooperate with the division superintendent to whom 

you submit your testimony to the extent that you prepare yourself to answer all 

questions readily and accurately before the day set for submitting said testimony.

Your special attention is called to those questions whose answers indicate the 

date of your appropriation and use of the water, and to the acreage of land irrigated and description thereof.

By complying with this request you will not only facilitate the taking of testimony, but will insure the correct establishment of the respective rights and 

possibly prevent expensive and aggravating litigation.

Yours truly, ,

Division Superintendent.

1 In case there is objection to the official plat, the parties objecting must, when giving proof, 

file a written statement of the reasons therefor, and must within thirty days file with the division superintendent a map of said ditch and irrigated lands, with affidavit of surveyor, giving 

date of survey, attached thereto.
MEAD.] WATER DIVISIONS AND DISTRICTS. 17

WATER DIVISIONS AND DISTRICTS.

In order that each of the more than 1,000 holders of water rights 

shall obtain his share of the common supply there must be some officer to see that the rights are enforced and protected in times of

FIG. 1. Location of water districts in portions of Divisions II and III.

scarcity. For convenience, and in order to make the work more 

effective, the entire State has been divided into four parts, called 

water divisions, and these divisions have been subdivided into disJBB 23 2
18 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

tricts, there being at present forty districts in the four divisions. 

The boundaries of divisions are fixed by statute, those of districts by 

orders of the board of control, both being determined by drainage 

lines. The officer in charge of a division is called a water superintendent. He has general control of the work of the water commissioners, which is the title of the officers in charge of districts. The 

limits of a district are determined by the work to be done. The greater 

the number of ditches and the more variable the supply the smaller 

the territory a commissioner can supervise.

The Bighorn watershed forms part of two divisions, the eastern 

slope being in Division II, and the western in Division III. The portion in Division II is subdivided into five districts, numbered from 

the south northward 2, 3, 4, 5$ and 6. The portion in Division III is 

subdivided into districts 4, 6, and 7. Fig. 1 shows the location and 

boundaries of the several districts.

Adjudications of rights to water have been had in districts 3, 4, 

and 5 of Division II, and in district 6 of Division III. Partial adjudications have been had in districts 2 and 6 of Division II. In the 

unadjudicated districts, or parts of districts, there is still a surplus 

water supply, rendering the services of a commissioner unnecessary 

and permitting further delay in the determination of rights.

APPROPRIATIONS IN DIVISION II.

DISTRICT 2, CRAZY WOMAN CREEK.

In 1889 scarcity of water in Crazy Woman Creek, a tributary of 

Powder River, led to an adjudication of rights thereto. Wyoming 

was then a Territory, and the procedure was had under the irrigation 

law of 1886. Under this law the testimony of appropriators was submitted to a master commissioner, appointed by the judge of the district court, and the final decree was based upon his findings. The 

outcome was not satisfactory. Water commissioners say that the 

decree can not be enforced because it does not conform to physical 

conditions, while late appropriators complain that the earlier priorities are for excessive amounts. The reasons for these objections and 

the basis of the master commissioner's findings can best be understood from an analysis of the decree. As it deals with the most 

important and most controverted water-right questions, not of Wyoming alone, but of all the arid States, it merits discussion. The decree, 

known as "John R. Smith, etc., v. Henry W. Devoe, etc.," reads in 

part as follows:

DECREE OF 1889.

This cause coming on for hearing upon the motion to confirm the report of the 

special commissioner, made at the present term, and upon the whole case, and 

the court being sufficiently advised, it is now adjudged that said report of the 

special commissioner be confirmed, and no exceptions having been filed or taken 

thereto, that the several findings of the commissioner be approved and confirmed,
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM CRAZY WOMAN CREEK. 19

and that they be taken, decreed, and held in all respects as the findings of this 

court in respect to each ditch and canal set out and reported in said report, numbered as to ditches and priorities in the appropriation of water, f°r beneficial 

purposes, from Crazy "Woman Creek and its several tributaries, respectively, from 

1 to 27, inclusively, and that the owner or owners of said several ditches and canals 

are, and shall be entitled, by original construction and the enlargement of their 

respective ditches and canals, to priority in the appropriation of water from said 

Crazy Woman Creek and its tributaries to the extent and in the order hereinafter 

set out.

PRIORITY NO. 1.

James A. Dowlin, the owner of said ditch by virtue of the construction thereof, 

shall be entitled, through said ditch, to so much water from Billy Creek, one of 

the tributaries of Crazy Woman Creek, as may be necessary and useful to irrigate 

160 acres of land lying thereunder, not to exceed 8.65 cubic feet of water per second 

of time, and the same shall be designated and known as priority No. 1.

PRIORITY NO. 2.

That John R. Smith and Agnes D. Smith, the owners of the "John R. Smith 

ditch " by original construction thereof, shall be entitled, through said ditch, to so 

much water from Crazy Woman Creek and its several tributaries as may be necessary and useful for the-irrigation of 1,200 acres of land lying thereunder, not to 

exceed 67.03 cubic feet of water per second of time, and the same shall be priority 

No. 2.

PRIORITY NO. 3.

That the Wyoming Land and Cattle Company, corporation, being the owner 

of what is known as the "North Fork ditch," taking its water from the North 

Fork of Crazy Woman Creek, by original construction thereof, shall be entitled 

through said ditch to so much water from said North Fork of Crazy Woman 

Creek as may be necessary to irrigate 800 acres of land owned by said company 

and lying under said ditch, not to exceed 30 cubic feet of water per second of 

time, and the same shall be priority No. 3.

The wording in the case of the remaining priorities is essentially 

the same, with the exception of the names of owners, ditches, and 

other details. The principal facts are given in the table on page 23. 

In the following table are the dimensions of the several ditches mentioned in the order and decree in this case and given in the report of 

the special commissioner.
20 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23. 

Dimensions of ditches taking water from Crazy Woman Creek.

Priority 

number.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

19* 

20 

20i 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25i 

26 

26i 

27

Name of ditch.

Billy Creek. .........................

North Fork.. .......................

Harris No. 1 .....-...._...........-.

Kingsbury No. I... ._.._....__..--.

Halt... ............................ .

Red Bark ...........................

Moreton .-----------..--.-.-.-...-.-

Cook................................

Muddy Creek ........................

PX. -. .-...._..........-.-. ..-

Kingsbury No. 4 ....................

Kingsbury No. 3. ..-._.-.---_.------

Kingsbury No. 2 ....................

Dick................................

Burton, Kelly Creek ...... ...........

Blue Gap -----...-..-...-..-.-..---.

Teddy Miller..... ........... ........

Fort Collins... --.-.--.-._--.-. ......

North Fork (c).. --.... .-,...-...-..

DevoeNo. \. ........................

DevoeNo. 2....... ...... ............

Canton, Kelly Creek ................

Thompson Brothers ......... .......

Thompson & Matthews. .............

Mitchell & Long ...........-...---..

Kennedy enlargement . .............

Harris No. 2. ........................

Average dimensions.

Top 

width.

feet. 

7 

7.5

6 

2 

5.5 

9.5 

6.2 

10 

7 

6 

7.6 

2 

2 

2 

a 7.1

8.5 

61.5

7.5 

13.75 

20 

8.5 

14 

10 

5 

6.5 

dd

11.7

Bottom 

width.

Feet. 

5 

5 

4 

4 

1 

3.5 

7.5 

4 

6 

4.5 

4 

" 5 

1 

1 

1

5

5.5 

7 

10 

5.5 

10 

8 

3 

3.5 

5

6

7.1 

3

Depth.

Feet. 

1 

2.75 

1.5 

1.50 

1 

1 

1.2 

1.1 

1.8 

2 

1 

1.3 

1 

1 

1 

2.3 

1.75 

1 

1 

2.25 

3.7 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

1.5 

1 

1 

1.9 

1.5 

2.3 

1

Grade 

per mile.

Feet. 

7.2 

12 

24 

6.25 

73.95 

16.5 

12.7 

19 

8 

4.5 

5 

5 

29.94 

29i 

71* 

5.3 

10 

15 

23 

12 

3.17 

24 

8 

5.28 

5.28 

20

(e) 

5.28 

4 

24 

6.28

a Average width as originally constructed.

b Average width.

c Enlarged by Covington and Mays.

d Average width as enlarged.

e Grade 4 feet to the mile part of the way and 15 feet for the remainder.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS PROM*CRAZY WOMAN CEEEK. 21 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECREE.

The water described in this decree would suffice for the irrigation 

of between 50,000 and 75,000 acres of land even under the wasteful methods which prevail. The property disposed of was of great 

value. If a second-foot of water is worth $250, rights to 900 secondfeet are of enough importance to warrant an inquiry into the methods by which they were acquired. Nothing is more indispensable, if 

we are to avoid disastrous controversies, than to have the acts by 

which a right to water is secured clearly denned and the limitations 

on that right definitely prescribed by law. Every user of water wishes 

to know how the title thereto is to be secured, while everyone interested in the growth and success of irrigated agriculture wishes to be 

certain that the commodity on which its success depends shall not be 

wastefully or fraudulently transferred to private or speculative owners. The results of this adjudication have apparently not answered 

either of the questions clearly or to the satisfaction of those directly 

concerned.

Controversies over the legality of these rights and over the discretionary authority of the water commissioner in enforcing the decree 

began the first season of its operation and still continue. That all 

should have agreed was out of the question. The Territorial law was 

both indefinite and contradictory in its provisions. Those claiming 

rights were not agreed either as to the meaning of the law or in their 

views of an irrigator's needs. Nor was the method of taking proof calculated to disclose the facts on which a just or satisfactory settlement 

of these rights must rest. There was no measure of the flow of the 

stream. There was no survey of the ditches, of the lands irrigated, 

or of the lands which could be irrigated. There was no proof of the 

actual volume of water diverted or of the needs of the land for which 

its use was claimed. All that was required in this disposal of public 

property was for each individual claiming a right therein to file 

proof of the building of a ditch and his estimate of the volume it 

would divert. The first objection to this was the lack of knowledge 

of the claimants themselves. Not one of them knew accurately the 

carrying capacity of his ditch or the volume needed to reclaim an 

acre of land. To all the expression " cubic foot per second" was an 

almost meaningless term. It would have meant just as much if the 

volume had been expressed in liters. Granting that the desire of all 

was to claim only what they were entitled to, their success in doing 

this would be wholly accidental. Nor was the submission of these 

statements to a judge or a commissioner having no greater practical knowledge than the irrigators themselves a wise provision. The 

questions to be determined were physical, not legal, and without some 

knowledge of either the volume which the stream carried or the water 

used on an acre of land these officers were in no way prepared to pass 

on the reasonableness of the claims.
22 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS* OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

In the absence, therefore, of a contest among the claimants themselves, by which the facts would be disclosed, it was possible for claims 

to be filed and approved which would establish rights to many times 

the volume used or, on the other hand, which would be below the 

claimants' real needs. Both of these results actually occurred in this 

adjudication. In saying this there is no desire to reflect on anyone. 

The outcome of this adjudication will compare favorably with that of 

most decrees rendered under this or similar laws elsewhere. What is 

desired is to explain at the outset that a law which gave the court no 

power to get at the facts by an impartial examination, but which, on 

the contrary, made the disposal of a stream depend almost wholly on 

the knowledge or honesty of those claiming it, could scarcely lead to 

anything but dissatisfaction, if not injustice.

It would seem that in fixing the volume of these rights the reasonableness of the claims should have been looked into and some uniform 

test applied by which their legality or necessity could be determined. 

The importance of this proceeding and its influence on further development was very great. This was a final transfer of a stream from 

public to private control. It was the surrender by the State of a part 

of its most valuable property and on the use of which its ultimate 

population and wealth depend. Realizing this fact, as all thoughtful minds do, it hardly seems reasonable that an ex parte claim 

should have been accepted without question and made the basis of 

the grant of a water right. To give every claimant all he asked 

without inquiry as to his needs or the work actually done to entitle 

him to anything would seem to be so unwise as to need no discussion. 

It makes the expression '' adjudication " a farce. It will be seen, however, from an analysis of the decree that this is practically what 

happened. The statute required the evidence of claimants to disclose the capacity of the ditch diverting water and the acreage of land 

which could be irrigated, and the implication seems fair that the intention of its f ramers was that this proof should guide the court in fixing 

the amounts of appropriations. If this is correct, then, under this law, 

the amount of the appropriator's right to water should have been 

determined by two facts: First, the capacity of the ditch or canal to 

divert water from the stream; second, the volume which had actually 

been applied to beneficial use and the requirements of that use. The 

language of the decree in its opening paragraph would seem to imply 

that the construction of ditches alone gave appropriators their rights 

and that the application of water to a beneficial use was not deemed 

essential. The portion of the decree on which this statement is based 

is as follows:

And that the owner or owners of said several ditches and canals are, and shall 

be, entitled by original construction and the enlargement ol! their respective ditches 

and canal to priority in the appropriation of water from said Crazy Woman Creek 

and its tributaries to the extent and in the order hereinafter set forth.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM CRAZY WOMAN CREEK. 23

If rights were based on the construction of ditches, it would seem 

that the amounts appropriated should have been fixed by their capacity. To determine whether or not this was done the capacity of these 

ditches was computed. The dimensions given in the decree were 

assumed to be correct, and the discharge was determined by the use 

of Kutter's formulae, a uniform coefficient of roughness of 0.025 being 

assumed. This would give a discharge above the actual flow for all 

except the largest ditches, because the small ones are poorly built, 

with rough sides and sharp and irregular curves. In the table which 

follows the computed capacity and the volume decreed are both given, 

with the difference between such appropriation and the discharge of 

the ditch:

Capacity of ditches taking water from Crazy Woman Creek and volume of water

allotted by decree of 1889.

Priority number.

1

a

3

4 

5 

6

1 

8 

9 

10

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

1617

18 

19

i9i

30

201 

21 

22 

23

24 

25 

25i

26

27

Name of ditch.

John R. Smith. ..

Harris No. 1 _ . . . . 

Kingsbury No.l. 

Holt. .............

Cook -._....-. ....

North Pork of 

Crazy Woman.

Px ...............

Kingsbury No. 4. 

Kingsbury No. 3. 

Kingsbury No. 2.

Burton, Kelly 

Creek.

Teddy Miller.... 

Port Collins-.-.-

NorthPork ------ 

Devoe No. 1... ...

Canton, Kelly 

Creek. 

Thompson Bros .

Thompson & 

Matthews. 

Moreton enlargement. 

Mitchell & Long. 

HarrisNo. 2 .....

Name of appropriator.

John R. and Agnes Smith 

Wyoming Land and Cattle Co.

Wyoming Land and Cattle Co. 

B. J. and J. M. Scott et al.

.....do... ..... ......

C. Basch and O. Speral..

... ..do.......... .......

Powder River Cattle 

Co., M. Prewen.b

Little North Pork Ditch 

Co. 

P. G.S.Hesse.... ........ 

Port Collins Land and 

Improvement Co. 

J. May and C. Covington 

H. W. and C. M. Devoe.. 

.....do....- ...........

P. S. and G. P. Thompson. 

. ....do. ...................

P. Q.S. Hesse. ...........

B. Long. M. P. Mitchell.

allotted inde-Volume cubic feet inper cree, 

second.

8.65

a67.03 

30

12.2 

3.75

8.20

37.4 

32 32

33.55

28

8.4 

17.9 

2.35

2.29

3.6

32 

12.32

3.6

26.5

84.45 

210

25 

60.10 

78.11

10.50

17.3 

12

45.72

26 

10

of Computed capacity feet cubic inditch, 

second. per 

16.20

59.20 

18.60

14.25 

3.36

12.60

18.70 

28.05

31.68

23

8 

14.74 

1.92

3.03

3.04

37.56

28.48

1.80

20.15

58.25 

166.50

63

72 

58.05

10.20

16 

10.50' 

59.33

14.40 

9

allotment ofExcess ovr of computed capacity 

ditch.

7.83 

11.40

.39

18.70

1.87

5

.40 

3.16 

.43

.56

1.80

6.35

26.20 

43.50

20.06

.30

1.30 

1.50 

6.30

10.60 

1

allotment Deficiency of 

computed under caof ditch. pacity 

7.55

2.05

4.40

5.73

.......

.78

5.56

16.16

.......

38 

11.90

Number ofwa-acres proposed toered or 

watered. be 

160

1,200 

800

150 

160 

150

800 

400 

3,300 

300

300 

200 

300 

300 

160

600 

160 

1,500

1,160 

21,000

800 

2,000 

3,000 

100

160

800 

4,000

1,200 

100

Number oftoacres each cubic footper 

allotted. second 

18.5 

17.8 

26.6

12.3

43.8 

18.3

20.8 

17.9 

98.3 

10.3

a5.7 

11.1

127.6 

133.3

44.4

48.7 

44.4 

56.6

13.7 

100

32 

33.3 

38.7 

9.5

9.2 

66.7 

85.3

48 

10

Total volumeallotted, in cubic feetsec- per 

ond.

8.65 

75.68 

105.68

117.88 

121.63 

129.83

167.23 

189.55 

223.10 

251.10

259.50

277.40 

279.75 

282 

285.60 

317.60 

339.93

333.52 

360.02

444.47

654.57

679.47 

739.57 

817.68 

828.18

845.48 

857.48 

903.30

928.30 

938.20

a Based on computation made in State engineer's office. b All the land owned by them,
24 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

"While rights may have been acquired through the building of these 

ditches, the volumes decreed were manifestly not based on their 

capacity. Appropriator No. 1, after building a ditch to carry 16 feet, 

was given only a fraction over half that amount, while in contrast 

thereto the third appropriator was given 11 feet more than his ditch 

would divert. The seventh appropriator was given 2 second-feet for 

each foot the ditch could carry, while the seventeenth was cut down 

to less than half what had been or could be taken from the stream. 

Priority No. 18 was favored with a double allowance, while No. 20^ 

got only half a loaf. Some of the appropriations agree approximately 

with the volume which the ditch could divert, but the number which 

are either far above or far below shows that this agreement was accidental and not based on any investigation of this question.

EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS CLAIMED.

Nearly all recent laws and decisions are agreed that simply diverting water does not of itself complete a right to it; that in addition 

the water so diverted must be applied to some beneficial use. If this 

test be applied to appropriations for irrigation, the actual acreage 

reclaimed might properly be taken as the measure by which the volume appropriated should be determined. All of these appropriations 

are for this purpose, and all except one of them, No. 16, states the 

acreage to be irrigated, and in the excepted case it is restricted to the 

land owned by the claimants. A casual inspection of the number of 

acres irrigated and the amount decreed shows that the need of the 

land had no weight in fixing these rights. While the measurements 

of the water used in irrigating an acre of land have not as yet taken 

the range or embraced all the conditions needed to fix the absolute 

volume to be used on that area, enough have been made to show 

the approximate limits of such use. In a series of tests begun by the 

State engineer and continued by the State University of Wyoming 

there was not a single instance in which the duty of a second-foot fell 

below 80 acres. As these tests were made in widely separated localities, embraced a wide range of crops, and were continued for five 

years, this may fairly be taken as a limit of the actual needs of irrigation, and the State legislature has, since this decree was rendered, 

made any appropriation in excess of 1 second-foot to 70 acres illegal.

The land along Crazy Woman Creek can be irrigated with less water 

than is required in some of the localities where the volume used was 

measured, and there is no reason to question th 3 statement that a duty 

of 1 second-foot to 80 acres is below rather than above the actual practice along the stream. But whether this be true or not, it is certain that the need of 1 acre is approximately the same as that of every 

other acre. There is so little variation in the soil and in the crops 

grown, that sufficient water for one 80-acre tract is enough for any 

other equal area along the same stream.
APPROPRIATIONS PROM CRAZY WOMAN CREEK. 25

This fact could not have been considered in fixing these rights. In 

the table given, one column gives the acres to be irrigated; in the 

next column are the acres for which 1 second-foot of water was 

decreed. It will be seen that the first appropriator is given 1 secondfoot for each 18 acres of his land, or at least four times the volume 

needed, while the fourteenth appropriator is required to spread a second-foot over 133 acres. When the owner of priority No. 20 found he 

was allowed only 1 second-foot for 100 acres, while his neighbor, owning the twenty-seventh, was given the same volume for 10 acres, he 

could not be blamed for objecting to the discrimination.

All of these awards are for a continuous flow for the entire year. 

In practice, however, the use of water in irrigation extends over a 

period of only three to four months. Assuming one hundred days to 

be the time of actual need, the irrigator under priority No. 1 is 

allowed water enough to cover his land to a depth of 10.8 feet, while 

the irrigator under priority No. 14 can cover his land with only 1.5 

feet. The irrigator under priority No. 24 can, if he desires, submerge 

his farm under nearly 22 feet of water, while the appropriator under 

priority No. 13 can cover his with less than that many inches.

The excessive volumes of these appropriations make it manifest 

that the necessities of the land irrigated had no more to do with determining the volume decreed than had the size of the ditches. It is 

necessary to look further, therefore, to learn the reason for making 

some rights exceed the capacity of ditches and others fall below, and 

for allowing some appropriators more water for 80 acres than was 

given others for 800.

In 1886 a law was passed requiring parties claiming appropriations 

of water to file in the county clerk's office a statement of their claim. 

This law required that the statement should contain a description of 

the ditch, the name of the stream, and the number of acres lying 

under the ditch and irrigated or proposed to be irrigated. In the 

same law was a provision for a similar statement of claim for proposed ditches, which required any party intending to appropriate 

water to file a similar statement with the county clerk. It contained 

the same provisions as the section relating to existing ditches, with 

several additional ones relating to protection of existing rights and 

fixing the time for beginning of work, together with the following 

ambiguous and misleading clause:

And from the time of filing any such statement water sufficient to fill such ditch 

or ditches and to subserve the use or uses aforesaid, if a lawful and just use. shall 

be deemed and adjudged to be appropriated.

Those who know anything about the difficulties which beset engineers in the measurement of water can realize how difficult, if not 

impossible, it was for farmers having no knowledge of hydraulics to 

make a correct estimate of the volume they had actually diverted 

and used, and that it was impossible for them to make an accurate
26 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO.23.

claim for the volume they proposed to use. A law which would give 

to each irrigator all he claimed would be an absurdity, if every claim 

was known to be limited to the claimant's estimate of his actual 

needs, because of the difference in the capacity of claimants to make 

a just or accurate estimate; but a law which throws the door open to 

speculative claims and declares that a speculative absorber of streams 

can secure an adjudicated right thereto simply by asking for it is an 

iniquity. The Territorial water law was not framed for that purpose, 

but it nevertheless opened the door for the water grabber.

Thirty-one claimants to the water of Crazy Woman Creek filed these 

statements, some being for existing ditches and some for proposed 

ones. It does not appear from their character that there was any 

attempt to secure speculative rights, since some of the claimants 

asked for more water than they needed and others for less. The 

truth seems to be that the intention of all these irrigators was to 

comply with the requirements of the law in good faith, but that the 

volumes claimed had to them no definite meaning, and their statement was entirely unintelligible. There was probably not a farmer 

along the stream who knew whether he used 1 cubic foot of water or 10. 

Hence these claims exhibit chiefly the irrigators' lack of knowledge and 

the necessity, in an adjudication, of some impartial and adequate 

investigation of the facts on which any reasonable or just right should 

rest. It was the belief of the holders of these water rights, however, 

that the filing of this ex parte statement constituted in itself an absolute title to water, and that the further action in adjudicating these 

rights was only to confirm their title to the volume claimed. The outcome was in accordance with this belief. A comparison of the statements of claims filed in the county clerk's office with the volumes allotted 

in the decree shows that in nearly every instance they are the same. 

While a number of those who filed statements of claim do not appear 

in the decree, and a number of appropriators appear in the decree who 

did not file claims, there are enough appearing in both to show that 

the adjudication was almost if not entirely a proceeding to give 

the makers of these claims all they asked. The following table shows 

the agreement between the claims filed in 1886 and the appropriations 

established by the decree of 1889:
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM CRAZY WOMAN CREEK. 27 

Comparison of appropriations under decree of 1889 with original claims filed.

Priority 

number.

2

3

4

6

8

9

10

17

16

19

19*

20

21

22

25 

26

27

Name of ditch.

North Fork ........

Harris No.l.. .......

Holt ................

Cook................

North Forkof Crazy

Woman. 

Dick. ...............

Blue Gap ...........

Teddy Miller ........

Fort Collins.. .......

Devoe No. 2 .........

Thompson & Matthews. 

Mitchell & Long.

Harris No. 2. ........

Name of appropriator.

Wyoming Laud and Cattle

Co. 

W.Harris ................

Co.

Orrin Cook et al. ...........

J. A. Dowlin ---... ........

Little North Fork Ditch Co.

F. G. S. Hesse..............

provement Co. 

H. W. andC. M. Devoe.....

.....do.......... .........

F. S. and G. F. Thompson.. 

B. Long and M. F. Mitchell .

W.Harris....--..-........-.

Volume allotted in decree, in cubic feet per 

second.

67.03

30

12.2

8.20

22.32

33.55

28

12.32

32

26.5

84.45

210

60.10

78.11

12 

25

10

Volume 

claimed ia 

statement.

a 80

55

12.2

8.20

22.32

33.55

28

12.32

32

26.5

84.45

210

43

78.11

12 

25

10

a 80 originally; 67.03 later.

If this creek carried enough water for all users, giving each appropriator all he claimed, the decree might not have been open to objection. Unfortunately the stream does not. It may for a few days or 

few hours each year carry 900 second-feet, although this is to be 

doubted; but during the latter half of the irrigation season the mean 

discharge is not one-tenth of this amount, and at times the channel 

below these ditches is a bed of dry sand. Not one-half the acreage 

designated in these appropriations has ever been irrigated, nor is 

there water enough in the stream to irrigate one-half of it without 

resorting to storage. With, storage and with proper economy in the 

use of water all the land could probably be brought under cultivation, 

but to secure these there must be some method of restricting appropriators to their actual needs in the first place and some security for 

the control of stored water in the second. Extravagant appropriation is a prolific source of mischief in preventing both of these 

desirable results. The holder of a large appropriation claims the
28 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

right to control it whether he needs it or not. Parties hesitate to construct storage works to impound water which runs to waste when the 

title thereto is clouded, as it must be when more water than the stream 

carries at flood time is decreed to be appropriated.

These excessive rights have been an incessant source of trouble to 

the water commissioner. The holder of priority No. 2 can close all 

the ditches above him if his claim is recognized, and if it is not he has 

a grievance against the commissioner. TAVO instances have already 

occurred in which the assistance of the State engineer had to be asked 

to settle controversies over the right of these holders of a surplus to 

arbitrarily close the head gates of later appropriators. There is the 

further danger that these holders of extravagant rights will in time 

proceed to sell the surplus. If they have the right to do this, as the 

supreme court of the State has decided in a similar case, the time 

will come when the owners of the first three appropriations will 

practically control the stream, and the subsequent rights will not be 

worth considering. Meantime the water commissioner is forced to 

be judge, jury, and sheriff in the division of water among users. 

Under the limitation of the decree which gives to appropriators only 

the water needed, the commissioner refuses to close the head gates of 

subsequent appropriators. except in cases of actual need on the 

part of the holders of prior rights. But this policy is being continually called in question and could be carried out equally well 

without a decree.

DISTRICT 3.

This district, as shown in fig. 1, includes Clear Creek and its tributaries, and extends from the summit of Cloud Peak on the west to the 

junction of Clear Creek and Powder River on the east. It is one of 

the most important districts in the State and one of the most interesting to the student of water-right problems.

FLOW OF CLEAR CREEK.

Measurements of the amount of water flowing in Clear Creek were 

begun in 1889, their necessity having arisen from controversies over 

the water rights which the shortage of that year rendered acute. The 

location of the gaging station is about 4 miles above the city of Buffalo, as shown on fig. 2. The principal diversions above the gaging 

station are those in the mountains where two ditches carry water 

across a low divide into the head of French Creek. The measurements made at this point, therefore, do not represent the total flow of 

the stream, except at such times as the principal ditches are closed. 

The results of the measurements up to and including 1893 are not 

available; those for 1894 are shown diagrammatically on page xxxiii 

of the Second Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming and 

are given in the following table. During 1895 observations were
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM CLEAR CREEK. 29

not made because it was impracticable to obtain the services of an 

observer. The results of the record for 1896 are published in Part

FIG. 2.^Irrigation systems on Clear Creek and tributaries.

IV of the Eighteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological 

Survey, on page 140, and those for 1897 in Part IV of the Nineteenth
30 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO.23.

Annual Report, of the Geological Survey, on page 298. The discharge for the three years is also given below and is shown diagrammatically in fig. 3 (page 31).

Estimated monthly discharge of Clear Creek at Buffalo, Wyoming. 

[Drainage area, 118 square miles.]

Month.

1894. 

June .----.-------...----

July.. ........... ......

August .... .--.......--

September .............

1896. 

May .....---..-...

July.,...........-----.

August .---_..-. . ....

October 8-19 ...........

1897. 

May

June........ -...-...--.

July.-...------...-....

September .............

October ................

November . .... .. ...

December ... .... ....

Discharge.

Maximum.

Sec.-feet.

853 

242 

80 

80

406 

504 

323 

134 

56 

38

632 

657

246

82

Minimum.

Sec.-feet. 

168 

62 

46 

46

64

82 

64 

40 

40 

29

209 

189 

55 

39

Mean.

Sec. -feet. 

283 

148 

54 

55

139 

251 

1 115 

66 

46 

32

345 

280 

' 112 

54 

a 30 

a 30 

a 30 

a 26

Total.

Acre-feet. 

16,841 

9,100 

3,320 

3,273

8,547 

14, 936 

7,071 

4,058 

2,737 

756

21,214 

16, 662

6, 887 

3,320 

1,785 

1,845 

1,785 

1,599

Run-off.

Depth.

Inches. 

2.68 

1.44 

.53 

.53

1.36 

2.37 

1.12 

.64 

.44 

.12

3.37 

2.64 

1.09 

.53

.28 

.29 

.28 

.25

Per 

square 

mile.

Sec. -feet. 

2.40 

1.25 

.46

.47

1.18 

2.13 

.97 

.56 

.39 

.27

2.92 

2.37 

.95 

.46 

.25 

.25 

.25 

.22

a Approximate.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM CLEAR CREEK. 31

FIG. 3. Discharge of Clear Creek near Buffalo, Wyoming, 1894,1896, and 1897. 

EARLY RIGHTS AND THEIR ADJUDICATION.

In May, 1878, Manlius Redmond began a ditch to water land along 

the main stream. It was, so far as the records show, the first attempt 

at irrigation in northern Wyoming, and the only attempt made that 

year. Ditches were built in 1879 along nearly every water course of 

the Bighorn Range, but in the previous year Mr. Redmond was 

alone. For more than ten years the building of ditches and the extension of the irrigated area made rapid progress, but 1889 was a season 

of drought, and the shortage on Clear Creek was so marked as to warn 

the users of water that the limit of profitable reclamation without the 

aid of reservoirs had about been reached. It also showed the need 

of an early determination of priorities. In the absence of this, position was everything; the ditch farthest upstream took its full supply
32 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. LNo.23.

regardless of the rights or necessities of users below, while those 

farthest down got nothing.

Among the worst sufferers from this condition of affairs was the 

city of Buffalo. Two large canals, shown in fig. 2, had been built to 

carry the water of the North Fork of Clear Creek across a divide 

into French Creek. Their combined capacity was sufficient to drain 

the stream, and as no seepage returned, the loss to users below was 

absolute. An adjudication of priorities was begun before the close 

of the year, but before the preliminary steps had been completed the 

Territory of Wyoming held a constitutional convention and adopted 

a provision placing the control of the public waters of the State in the 

hands of the board of control. The judge of the district court ruled 

that this action divested his court of jurisdiction, and further progress was stayed until after the admission of Wyoming to statehood 

and the passage of the State irrigation law.

Under the State law rights to water are determined by the board of 

control, and an adjudication was .begun by measuring the ditches 

which take water from a stream and by making surveys of the land 

irrigated or which can be irrigated. The measurements and surveys 

of Clear Creek and its tributaries were begun in 1891; when completed they were placed in the hands of W. J. Clarke, the division 

superintendent, whose duty it was to take the testimony of appropriators. Mr. Clarke at once began the taking of testimony, but had not 

completed this when the board of control met, in February, 1892. 

On his return from this meeting the division superintendent, who was 

a stockman, became involved in the "invasion" of Johnson County, 

as it was called, and all the proofs submitted were lost. It was 

necessary, therefore, to begin proceedings anew and to take all the 

testimony over again. Before this work was completed the testimony formerly taken was recovered, and both sets of proofs were 

before the board of control at its final determination of these rights. 

The two sets of proofs disclosed many discrepancies and contradictions, and were the cause of several contests, which delayed the final 

determination of these rights until 1895.

DIVERSION ACROSS DIVIDES.

The map of Clear Creek and its tributaries (fig. 2), shows the location and priority numbers of the several ditches; it also shows that 

one of these tributaries, Piney Creek, drains a larger mountain area 

than the main stream and also has a greater discharge. In addition there are the smaller tributaries of French, Johnson, Sayles, 

Rock, Shell, J. A., Boxelder, Bear Gulch, and Little Piney creeks. 

Clear Creek and Piney Creek each reach to the summit of the range 

and drain the entire eastern slope of Cloud Peak, its highest elevation. The other streams are cut off from the perpetual snows and 

piily drain the outlying foothills; hence, while they have an abun-
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 23 PL. II

PINEY CREEK BELOW OUTLET OF CLOUD PEAK LAKE.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM FRENCH CREEK. 33

dant supply for early irrigation, the late supply is wholly inadequate 

and, unless reenforced, will only serve for the reclamation of a restricted area. These smaller tributaries are, however, bordered by 

lands equal in area and of equal value with those along the valleys of 

the larger ones; hence some method of reenforcing their water supply 

became an early and important problem. The topography of this 

region offers unusual opportunities for doing this.

The head waters of French Creek are almost directly below Clear 

Creek, as its torrential flood comes from the rocky, snow-clad slopes 

of Cloud Peak. About all that is needed to turn Clear Creek out 

of its channel is a dam high enough to cause the water to overflow 

its bank, as the slope is toward French Creek from near its northern 

margin. One canal built to turn water into French Creek is only 

half a mile long, while the other, in a less desirable location, is only 

a mile in length. The map of Clear Creek and its tributaries (fig. 2) 

shows the location of these two canals, together with the priority 

numbers 71, 79, and 93 of their appropriations.

The turning of the water from Clear Creek into French Creek and 

the use of the channel of French Creek as a part of two canal systems 

created some perplexing problems for the board to solve in the determination of the two classes of rights from the latter stream. . Both 

before and after the construction of the canals to provide this supplemental supply, parties had built ditches and appropriated the original 

or natural flow of French Creek. Some of these appropriators are 

interested in the canals in order to obtain an augmented supply, so 

that in a few cases the same individuals claimed rights to water 

from two sources through the same ditch to be used to irrigate substantially the same land. Other parties who made no claim to the natural 

flow of French Creek, but who were part owners in the canals to furnish 

the augmented supply, had built ditches from French Creek for the 

purpose of taking out the water turned into it.

There are, therefore, three classes of appropriators along French 

Creek. First, those who claim the natural flow of the stream; second, 

those who claim a right to the water of both Clear Creek and French 

Creek; and third, those who claim the right to use the channel of 

French Creek as a part of their ditch system, but draw their water 

supply entirely from Clear Creek. Among these different appropriators a difference of opinion exists as to the volume of water supplied 

by the natural flow of French Creek. At the time of the adjudication 

it was urged by the owners of the rights from Clear Creek that the 

claims of appropriators from French Creek were for more water than 

the creek carried, that the acreage originally irrigated had been 

extended by the unauthorized use of a part of the supply turned in, 

and that the board should restrict these claims. This was not done, 

because it was found impracticable to measure the flow of French 

Creek. To have done this would have involved shutting down the 

IBR 23 3
34 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

ditches from Clear Creek and the ditches of appropriators above some 

of the tributaries of French Creek. A single measurement would not 

be sufficient. In fact, it would take a large number of measurements 

to reach any definite conclusion.

The demands of the area now under irrigation along the stream 

are so largely in excess of the natural flow of French Creek that to 

turn off the water from Clear Creek for a sufficient length of time to 

permit the measurement of the natural flow of French Creek would 

have caused the destruction of two-thirds of the crops along the 

stream. Those appropriators who have an interest in Clear Creek 

alone or in both supplies naturally objected to such action. The 

board was therefore compelled to rely on the engineer's surveys and 

on the proof submitted. Rights were restricted to the actual areas 

irrigated, but the source of the appropriation recognized was based 

on statements of irrigators. Those who claimed that their lands 

were irrigated from French Creek alone were given appropriations 

for their lands from that source, and those who claimed to have used 

only the water of Clear Creek were given a right from that stream. 

Whether or not this was in accordance with the facts will probably 

never be definitely known. It is one of the instances where haphazard development has reached a stage that renders any accurate settlement out of the question.

The same difficulty now confronts the water commissioner in performing his duties. The two ditches which divert Clear Creek into 

French Creek are so inaccessible as to make their frequent regulation 

impossible. Both are mountain ditches with head gates over 9,000 

feet above sea level. Their channels are cut among the pines that 

cover this region and through the rocks from which they spring. To 

reach them requires a steep and toilsome journey of 15 miles from the 

mountain's base. They are at an elevation where frost is perpetual 

and snow almost so. The regulation of such ditches is, therefore, 

difficult and expensive, and any continuous measurement of the 

volume they carry is, for the present, out of the question, but the 

increasing value of these rights will in time render the accurate division of water indispensable. The water from Clear Creek mingles 

with the natural flow of French Creek until it reaches the first ditches 

built to divert it. There a part is taken out and carried over the 

divide between French Creek and Johnson Creek, and serves to reenforce the latter; the ditch is also extended across a second divide, 

where the remainder is turned into Sayles Creek to reenforce the 

fiow of this stream and of Rock Creek below their junction.

The fluctuations in the flows of French Creek and Clear Creek do 

not agree, because the latter is fed from the summit of the range, 

while the former drains a larger area of the foothills region; it rises 

earlier in the season and also begins to subside earlier, but as the 

water turned in joins it near its source no measurements to deter-
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 23 PL. Ill

RESERVOIR SITES ON PINEY CREEK. 

A, At Elk Lake; B, At Mead Lake.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM PRAIRIE DOG CREEK. 35

mine these variations can be had without an outlay greater than can 

now be afforded. The practical result is that during the early part 

of the season all users take from the natural flow of French Creek, 

while during the latter part nearly all. are supplied from Olear 

Creek. The same conditions exist on Johnson and Sayles creeks, 

while on Rock Creek there is a third element of uncertainty. This, 

however, has arisen since the adjudication of rights, and will be 

described later.

PRAIRIE DOG CREEK.

Referring again to the drainage map of this district (fig. 2), it will 

be noticed that Piney Creek, which rises in the lakes on the northern

FIG. 4. Ditches diverting water from Piney Creek across Massacre Hill divide to Prairie

Dog Greet.

slope of Cloud Peak (PI. II), not only drains a large extent of the 

summit of the range, but effectually cuts off a number of the smaller 

tributaries of Clear Creek therefrom. Piney Creek, like Clear Creek, 

receives nearly all its water from one direction. After the stream 

turns to the north the drainage on the east is into the smaller streams 

which rise in the foothills below. The most interesting peculiarity 

of the topography of this stream is, however, the fact that it does
36 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO.23.

not leave the mountain in a valley, but on a ridge, the mouth of the 

canyon of Piney Creek being near the summit of the divide which 

separates the drainage of Tongue and Powder rivers. This divide is 

an elevated spur of the main range known as Massacre Hill. It leaves 

the mountain almost at a right angle and extends for a considerable 

distance eastward. At one point Piney Creek is within 50 feet of its 

summit. After that it tumbles down into the valley which borders 

its eastern slope.

Mead, Pompey, Jenks, and Murphy creeks, which form Prairie Dog 

Creek, a tributary of Powder River, rise on the northern slope of 

Massacre Hill almost directly opposite the point where Piney Creek 

so nearly approaches its summit, as shown in fig. 2. Originally this 

stream was of little importance. It lacked the snowfall necessary to 

a perennial water supply, and although a few springs are found along 

its channel, the volume available for irrigation was insignificant. It 

was an easy project, however, to carry water from Piney Creek over 

the divide, as shown in fig. 4 and in PI. IV, and turn it into this 

stream. Three ditches have been built for this purpose. These 

ditches follow the prevailing practice of this region in making natural 

channels a part of the ditch system. The owners of one ditch live 

along Prairie Dog Creek for 15 miles. The water turned in at the 

head is taken out by small ditches which divert the creek near their 

farms. There are 84 appropriations through the ditch of the Prairie 

Dog Water Supply Company which are diverted from the second 

stream through a score of smaller ditches.

Before the supplemental water supply had been provided a number 

of settlers filed on la^d along Prairie Dog Creek and built ditches 

therefrom. Some of these settlers became part owners of the ditch to 

provide an additional water supply; others did not, so that the board 

again had to deal with three kinds of rights from the same channel 

rights to the natural flow, rights to the water turned in, and rights to 

both combined.

There was a further complication in this case. Prairie Dog Creek 

is a part of the drainage system of Tongue River, and if drainage 

lines had to be regarded, it belonged to that district; but since practically the entire water supply came from Piney Creek, the board 

ruled 'that water supply rather than the slope of the country should 

govern its supervision, and this portion of the drainage of Tongue 

River was made a part of the Clear Creek district.

SUMMARY OF RIGHTS TO WATER.

The diagrammatic map of the irrigation system from Clear Creek 

(fig. 2) gives the location of the ditches, with the priority numbers 

of their appropriations. A full list of these is given in the Third 

Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming, 1895-96, pages 

181 to" 194.
I/. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 23 PL. IV

NORTH SLOPE OF MASSACRE HILL, ILLUSTRATING EROSION IN DITCHES FROM PINEY CREEK.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS PROM FRENCH CREEK. 37

The amount of each of the appropriations was fixed by the acreage 

shown by the proof to have been irrigated, 1 cnbic foot per second 

being allowed for each 70 acres. On Crazy Woman Creek it will be 

remembered the appropriations were based on the claims filed by 

appropriators, without regard to the actual use of the water. On 

French Creek appropriations were based on the areas reclaimed, without regard to the volume of water described in the original statement 

of claim. The relation of these claims to the actual use of water in 

irrigation is shown by the comparison of the volume claimed and the 

volume appropriated on French Creek, as given in the table below.

Volumes appropriated on French Greek as fixed by the order of the board of 

control and volumes claimed in appropriators' statements.

Priority 

number.

1

2

2

3

4

4

4

5,7

6

Name of ditch.

Sneider No. 1 .......

Moeller No. 1 .......

Moeller No. 2 .......

Moeller No. 8 .......

John A. Fisher No. 2.

Mayhew &Gorgen_.

Dundee _.-.-_......-

Total ..........

Name of appropriate!1 .

Alice S. Rapelyen .........

.....do.....................

.....do ............... ....

.....do ....................

Robert Foote...... ........

.....do ........... ........

Volume appropriated 

in decree, 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

1.64

1.07

.50

4.28

.50

.43

.17

1.57

.28

10.44

Volume 

claimed in 

original 

statement, 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

8

6

3

13.97

3.35

33.15

12.40

8.2

13.97

88.04

It will be seen from the totals that the appropriations established 

by reason of beneficial use amounted to only about one-tenth of those 

claimed. The ratio on all of the streams of this district could not 

be determined, because many of the claims were for the '' unappropriated waters of the stream," designating no specific volume; but if 

these claims to whole streams were excluded, the claims for a definite 

volume alone were largely in excess of the actual use, as will be seen 

by the following comparison, in which all of the claims for indefinite 

amounts have been thrown out.
38 WATER-RIGHT PEOBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

Volumes claimed and volumes actually used on streams in water district No. 3, in

cubic feet per second.

Name of stream.

Total Clear Creek ...... ...................... _ .........

Total Bock Creek ........................................

Total Sayles Creek.... ...................................

Total Johnson Creek .....................................

Total Piney Creek..... ............................. ......

Total Shell Creek .... ............ ......................

Grand total............ .._..............._.........

Volume 

used.

282. 78

187. 64

8.18

8.18

334. 88

5.52

772. 13

Volume 

claimed.

858.6

749.9

75.1

44.7

948.8

68.6

2,785.7

ALLOWANCE FOR LOSS OF WATER IN TRANSMISSION.

Among the interesting questions raised in this adjudication was 

the extent of the loss of water from canals by seepage and evaporation and the authority of the board to provide for this by an increase 

in the appropriation.

In the original order of the board no such allowance was made, it 

being held that 1 cubic foot per second for each 70 acres is so much 

in excess of the requirements of crops, when the water is distributed with reasonable skill and economy, that it will provide for- all 

necessary loss in transportation.

The Wyoming Land and Cattle Company was, however, dissatisfied 

with this decision, and on this and. other grounds asked for and 

obtained a rehearing, at which measurements were presented showing 

the losses taking place between the head gate and the place of use.

The conditions on this ditch are somewhat unusual and need to be 

stated in order that the results may be properly interpreted. The 

head gate of the ditch is on what was formerly the Fort McKinney 

military reservation, near the mouth of the canyon and 3 miles above 

the town of Buffalo. At the time of these measurements, irrigation 

from the ditch or above the ditch was not permitted within the reservation limits. After crossing its boundary the ditch passes for 

several miles around and across a series of ridges on the slopes of 

which losses by seepage are considerable. In the ravines between 

these ridges and, in one place, along a slope which the ditch crosses 

there are beds of sand where the loss from percolation is so great that 

flumes have been built at these points. For 10 miles the following 

conditions favor an exceptional loss:

The land through which the ditch is built is not irrigated and 

local atmospheric conditions favor rapid evaporation.

It is the highest ditch and therefore gains nothing from the irrigation 

of lands above.
MEAD.] LOSS OF WATER IN TRANSMISSION. 39

The arid land, the steep slopes, and the stretches of sand all add to 

the drain by percolation.

The measurements submitted were made in 1896 and 1897 by 

Fred Bond, a civil engineer of Buffalo, Wyoming, and were made in 

the following manner: A rectangular weir 4.75 feet in length was 

placed in the ditch immediately below the head gate, and a similar 

weir, with a length of 5.75 feet, was placed in the ditch near the lands 

to be irrigated, 10 miles from the first weir and 56 feet below it, that 

being the fall of the ditch in this distance. It was found by experiments that it took from eleven to thirteen hours for water to pass from 

one weir to the other. Hence in making these tests the measurements 

at the upper weir were taken in the morning and those at the lower 

weir in the evening, in order to measure as nearly as possible the same 

supply. The tables which follow give the results obtained, that for 

August 27 being evidently due to an error in measurement or to disturbance by storms.

Loss of water in transmission through ditch of Wyoming Land and Cattle

Company.

Date.

1896.

July 10.. ............

July 11. .............

July 13. ............

August 25 ....... ....

August 27 ..........

Augustas...... ....

August 29 ..........

August 30 ..........

August 31

September 1 ........

1897. 

Augusts.... ------

August lO....... ....

August 11 ..........

August 12...... ....

August 24..........

Depth of 

water on 

upper 

weir, in 

feet.

0.83

.82

.76

.65

.62

.60

.59

.59

.59

.58

0.562

5fi7

- .60

.68

63

.467

Discharge, 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

11.448

11.328

10. 123

8.058

7.515

7.152

6.986

6.986

6.986

6.799

6.37

6.69

7.31

8.59

7.70

5.99

Depth of 

water on 

lower 

weir, in 

feet.

 0.56

.55

.55

.50

(?) .58

.46

.45

.44

.45

.44

 0.34

.34

Sfi

.43

.38

24

Discharge, 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

7.865

7.642

7.642

6.876

(?)9.270

5.877

5.671

5.547

" 5.671

5.547

3.74

3.74

4.06

5.27

4.42

2.24

Total 

leakage 

in flumes, 

in cubic 

feet per 

second.

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

(a)

0.068

.09

.125

.08 '

04-7

(a) .

Total 

loss, in 

cubic 

feet per 

second.

3.583

3.686

' 2.481

1.182

1.275

1.315

1.439

1.315

1.252

2.56

2.86

3.12

3.24

3.23

3

7K

Loss, in 

per cent.

31.3

32.6

24.5

14.7

17.9

18.9

20.6

18.9

18.5

40.2

42.8

42.8

37.7

42.0

62.6

a Not measured.
40 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

It will be seen by examining these tables that the percentage of 

loss when a small volume of water was carried was much greater than 

when the depth was increased, seepage and evaporation being apparently about constant. If the board took the maximum loss of over 60 

per cent as a basis for an order increasing the original right so as to 

give 1 second-foot for each 70 acres irrigated at the place of use, it 

would result in nearly double the original appropriation, while if the 

minimum loss of less than 15 per cent were made the basis of a new 

right, this action would require so slight a change as not to warrant 

a modification of the order.

The board refused to grant the additional allowance. The rehearing established a right to water for an additional acreage and increased 

the volume to be turned into the ditch. As the loss from seepage and 

evaporation seems about constant, and does not materially increase 

when the ditch is full, the larger the amount turned in the smaller 

the percentage of loss. Hence, with the larger right a minimum loss 

of less than 15 per cent may be expected.

Fort McKinney has since been abandoned and the reservation will 

soon be largely irrigated. It is believed that the percentage shown 

by the measurements will decrease in the future by the building of 

ditches above this one and the irrigation and saturation of the land 

below it.

The allowance of 1 second-foot to 70 acres being in excess of actual 

needs was regarded as sufficient to meet the average loss from the 

ditch at the present time and ample to meet the ultimate decrease.

The wide variation between percentages in the months when the 

use is heavy and in the later ones when the use is small, would make 

the establishment of a satisfactory or just appropriation to meet this 

loss difficult, if not impossible, while the probability of a progressive 

decrease in such loss would make it unwise to interfere. Even if the 

proportion allowed agreed with the conditions when made there is 

small likelihood of such agreement five years hence.

The board held, therefore, that the making of appropriations in 

excess of the statutory limit would not be approved; but that where 

satisfactory proof of unpreventable losses in transit made it apparent 

that the volume remaining, when the land was reached, would not 

produce crops, a temporary increase would be provided for by an 

administrative order to the water commissioner.

OWNERSHIP IN DITCH NOT NECESSARY TO THE ACQUIREMENT OF A

WATER RIGHT.

One of the parties submitting proof of the beneficial use of water 

from Piney Creek was John Leitner, who showed to the satisfaction 

of the board that he had irrigated and reclaimed 15 acres of land 

through the Upper Phil Kearney ditch. The board by order estab-
MEAD.] OWNERSHIP IN DITCH. 41

lished the right to water for this land through said ditch. In his 

proof, Leitner stated that he was a part owner of the ditch through 

which the appropriation was made, and this claim was not contested 

in the proceedings before the board. Subsequent litigation arose 

over the ownership of the ditch, and the court decided that Leitner 

had no interest in it, but that Thomas J. Foster was the sole owner. 

Following this decision Foster requested the board of control to 

amend its records by making him the owner of the water right for 15 

acres of land acquired by Leitner through the use of the water in its 

irrigation. Foster's request was based on the contention that his 

ownership of the ditch made him the owner of all the water it 

diverted or of all the rights to water acquired through it.

As it is the belief of the board that rights to water for irrigation, 

in the State of Wyoming, do not inhere either in the man who filed 

the claim or in the ditch which carried the water, but in the land 

reclaimed, the request for a transfer of the right from both the place 

where acquired and from the" man who acquired it did not seem well 

founded; but recognizing the importance of the question involved, 

the board, before rendering a decision, asked the advice of the 

Attorney-General. The letter of inquiry and the reply were as

follows:

CHEYENNE, WTO., March 20,1896.

DEAR SIR: The State board of control is in receipt of a petition for review of 

the order determining the priorities of water from Piney Creek and tributaries, 

and requesting that the board of control cancel a certain certificate of appropriation of water to John Leitner, guardian, and find that Thomas J. Foster is the 

sole owner of the Upper Phil Kearney ditch.

The board of control has given careful consideration to this petition, and to the 

order of the court determining the ownership of the Upper Phil Kearney ditch, 

and has examined the evidence submitted before said board in the adjudication 

referred to. We find that the testimony submitted showed that Leitner had irrigated the land for which an appropriation was issued through the Upper Phil 

Kearney ditch and was entitled to an appropriation therefor, and after a reexamination of the evidence the board is of the opinion that the decree establishing this 

appropriation was correct.

La awarding an appropriation for the particular land for which an appropriation 

was claimed by said Leitner, the board did not attempt to determine that he had 

any ownership whatever in the ditch of Mr. Foster. It simply decided that the 

evidence submitted showed that the water had been transported through this 

ditch. The board has always held that its authority is restricted to the examination and determination of the facts showing the application of the water of the 

State to beneficial use and the rights thereby created, and that it could not determine the property rights in ditches through which the water was conducted. 

That question has been before the board repeatedly and the decisions have been 

uniform. In the same way the board is now of the opinion that it is not within 

its jurisdiction to say that Mr. Leitner is or is not a part owner in the Foster 

ditch. The decree of the court is regarded as determining that fact, but its validity or effect will not be in any way enhanced, in our opinion, by an assumption 

on the part of the board that it has authority to in any way determine such facts.

We have, by order, instructed the division superintendent to notify the water 

commissioner of the effect of the order of the court, and that the amount of the
42 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

appropriation through the Upper Phil Kearney ditch has been reduced by such 

order by the amount necessary for the irrigation of 15 acres, but we do not 

feel authorized to cancel the certificate of Mr. Leitner. We believe if he can 

secure satisfactory arrangements for the transportation of the water appropriated 

through the Upper Phil Kearney ditch by giving suitable compensation to Mr. 

Foster for the service rendered, or if he can make arrangements for the transportation of the water appropriated for this land through some other ditch, he has a 

perfect right under our laws to do so, and that the appropriation for the land is 

not destroyed by the fact that he is not part owner in a particular ditch.

Recognizing the importance of the questions raised, and desiring to avail ourselves of your assistance in their proper solution, we shall "be pleased if you can 

advise us as to whether or not, in your judgment, the board has any authority 

whatever to determine or pass upon property rights in ditches, and whether or 

not the decree of the court in this case makes it mandatory upon us to cancel the 

certificate of appropriation of said Leitner.

Respectfully submitted.

EL WOOD MEAD, 

President State Board of Control.

Hon. B. F. FOWLER,

Attorney-General, Cheyenne, Wyo. *

MARCH 22,1896.

DEAR SIR: Replying to your communication of March 20, with reference to 

the application of Thomas J. Foster for a review of your decision granting a certificate of appropriation to John Leitner, guardian, in which application for 

review Mr. Foster claims to be the sole owner of the Upper Phil Kearney ditch, 

and presents a decree of the district court of Johnson County, in an injunction 

suit brought by Mr. Foster against Mr. Leitner, the decree establishing the ownership of Mr. Foster:

I desire to state that while the State board of control was correct in respecting 

the decree to the extent of instructing your water commissioner that the amount 

of the appropriation for the Upper Phil Kearney ditch should be reduced by the 

amount of water granted therein to Mr. Leitner for the irrigation of fifteen acres, 

still at the same time you would not be justified in canceling the certificate 

issued to Mr. Leitner.

While there are allegations in the petition for review to the effect that Mr. Leitner made fraudulent representations to your board with regard to his having an 

interest in the ditch in question, still, in the absence of an affirmative showing of 

such fraud, there would certainly be no authority on the part of your board to take 

this for granted and cancel the certificate in question. The decree of the district 

court of Johnson County does not indicate this, nor do I understand that affidavits or other proof have been filed at this time for this purpose. The petition 

which is filed is not in the nature of a petition for rehearing, and I am of the 

opinion that this question can not be properly reached by your board in any other 

manner, and unless with the application for a rehearing proof should be presented 

to your office showing that at the time Mr. Leitner used the Phil Kearney ditch 

he did so as a trespasser and without the consent of Mr. Foster, then your certificate should stand.

As to whether or not Mr. Leitner is able to use the water in the future is certainly not a question to be considered, as under the statute he is given two years 

before he can be charged with abandonment, and if during that time he should 

build a new ditch or arrange with Mr. Foster or some other person to conduct the 

water from the stream in question upon his land, he would be entitled to appropriate enough to irrigate fifteen acres.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM BIG GOOSE CREEK. 43

As to the claim that there is a cloud upon the title to Mr. Foster's ditch by your 

granting the certificate, this is certainly a mistake, and as Mr. Foster would not 

get the benefit of the water for the fifteen acres which is appropriated by Mr. 

Leitner, I can certainly see no advantage to Mr. Foster in securing the cancellation of the certificate in question.

Respectfully submitted.

BENJAMIN F. FOWLER,

Attorney-General. 

Hon. ELWOOD MEAD,

State Engineer, Cheyenne, Wyo.

The reply confirmed the board's views and the request was refused, 

Mr. Leitner being given two years in which either to build a new ditch 

or to arrange with Mr. Foster for the transportation of the water to 

which he was entitled through the Upper Phil Kearney ditch.

DISTRICT 4.

This district, shown in figs. 1 and 5, includes Big Goose Creek and 

its tributaries. Little Goose Creek is by far the most important 

tributary, the acreage irrigated along its valley being greater than 

along the valley of the main stream. Among the smaller tributaries, 

Soldier, Rapid, and Beaver creeks are the principal branches of Big 

Goose Creek, while Jackson, Hanna, Tepe, Davis, Trabing, Kemp, 

Sackett, and Kruse creeks are all branches of Little Goose Creek, 

which aid in augmenting its flow and from which lands are irrigated. 

Here, as in the Clear Creek district, the principal stream drains the 

summit of the range and cuts off the late water supply of the smaller 

tributaries, and here also irrigators along these smaller tributaries 

have taken advantage of the topography of the country to relieve their 

shortage by carrying water across the divides. This transfer of water 

from one stream to another has been carried to such an extent in this 

district that some users get water from half a dozen sources. Irrigators near the lower end of Little Goose Creek have the natural flow of 

the stream, water from Piney Creek, and from three ditches from Big 

Goose Creek, making in all five separate sources of supply. These 

transfers from one watershed to another and this extended use of 

streams as parts of ditch systems have undoubtedly greatly extended 

the acreage of land reclaimed, but it has at the same time enormously 

increased the difficulty of determining and protecting rights. Determining the rights to one stream is hard enough, because of the uncertainty and conflicts of early records, but when these uncertainties 

embrace four or five sources the problem is infinitely more complex. 

Take as an illustration the rights to water through the Last Chance 

ditch. Its head gate is in Little Goose Creek. Whenever there is a 

surplus in this stream irrigators take from the nearest source. Whenever the supply is inadequate a ditch owned by the same persons diverting water from Big Goose Creek is opened and water is used from that 

stream. These irrigators have therefore established a right to water
44 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

from both streams. The question which confronted the board was, How 

to frame a decree which would give to these irrigators the right to take 

water from both streams and at the same time limit it to a single 

appropriation. If it was absolutely certain that water rights would 

remain attached to the land where acquired and the decree could have 

been so worded as simply to give this land whatever water was

FIG. 5. Location of ditches on tributaries of Tongue Eiver, Division II, district 4.

needed, there would have been little trouble in preparing the certificates, but the statutes of Wyoming prescribe the form of certificates of 

appropriation and require the board issuing them to give the volume 

appropriated in cubic feet per second continuous flow. It was necessary to give the same number of second-feet from each stream, and to
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER NO. 23 PL V

TIMBER FLUME IN CANYON OF TONGUE RIVER.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM TONGUE RIVER. 45

make this continuous, since there is no authority in the law for limiting the appropriation to certain months or to certain portions of the 

irrigation season. The board endeavored, in framing its order, to 

prevent any claim to a double appropriation being set up in the 

future. But its success will largely depend upon the decision of the 

supreme court as to whether rights acquired under the Territorial law 

can be sold and transferred to other lands. Ii! this right should be 

upheld, there is no question that the right to dispose of the appropriations from one of these streams will become a matter of litigation.

The use of two ditches to divert a single appropriation and the use 

of a natural stream as a part of the canal system made it difficult to 

fix priorities. Many of the ditches from Little Goose Creek were constructed prior to those which turn water from Big Goose Creek and 

have different priority numbers. Hence the same tract of land has a 

divided appropriation the two parts coming from different sources 

and having different priorities.

The boundaries of district No. 4 are based on drainage lines, and 

prior to the beginning of irrigation there was no connection between 

the streams of this district and those on either side above the mouth 

of Big Goose Creek. There are three places at which water is transferred from one district to another. It is turned from the North 

Fork of Big Goose Creek into the head of Wolf Creek in water district 

No. o, and by the Patrick ditch from Big Goose Creek across Soldier 

Creek, and thence into Wolf Creek at a point about 12 miles farther 

down; and on the south water is turned into Little Goose Creek by 

one of the canals from Piney Creek, so that drainage lines are being 

almost obliterated. When the Granger canal is completed there will 

be a continuous connection by ditches from Powder River on the south 

to the Montana boundary, a distance of 100 miles, uniting four districts. 

A summary of the appropriations of water in this district is given in 

the First Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming, 1891-92, 

pages xxv to xxx, and continued in the Third Biennial Report, 1895-96, 

pages 177 and 180.

DISTRICT 5.

In district No. 5, shown! in figs. 1 and 6, the cost of ditches, rather 

than the adequacy of the water supply, governed the location of the 

farms first reclaimed. Tongue River, the main stream, has still a 

large volume unappropriated, which each year runs to waste, but on 

a number of its tributaries there are more lands under ditch than these 

streams will fertilize. This condition of affairs is due to the fact that 

ditch building from Tongue River is expensive, as shown in PI. V. 

After the stream leaves the mountains the grade of its channel is very 

light and the valley narrow. On both sides are high bluffs with very 

little irrigable land along their slopes, while to reach the table-lands 

above requires long, crooked ditches with many dikes or flumes, where 

ravines or tributary streams have to be crossed.
46 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

The shortage of water on the tributaries led to early quarrels over 

its division. Litigation over water rights on Wolf (east of area shown 

on fig. 6), Amsden, Smith, and Hewes (or Columbus) creeks began 

when Wyoming was a Territory, but no conclusion had been reached 

when the State law went into effect. The testimony which had been 

taken in this litigation was transferred to the board of control, and 

these streams were among the first to be dealt with by that body. 

Since the priorities on these tributaries were earlier than the approR.88W R87W

PIG. 6. Location of ditches on North Fork of Tongue River, Division II, district 5.

priations on the main stream they were independent of any claims on 

the latter. Hence, in the final determination of these rights, the 

board of control dealt with each as a separate and distinct drainage 

basin. The announcement of the policy of the board of control, in 

limiting water rights to the volume actually used, was not in accord 

with the views of some of these claimants, who held that their statements of claims described the amounts of their appropriations, and 

that to reduce these was an encroachment on vested rights.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM AMSDEN CREEK. 47

An appeal from the board's order was taken by the second appropriator from Amsden Creek. This appropriator was allowed 0.86 of 

a cubic foot per second for the irrigation of 60 acres of land, the location of the land being described. The appeal was based on the claim 

that water for 150 acres had been appropriated, and made it necessary for the court to rule on the question as to what, under the Wyoming law, constituted an appropriation. The following extract from 

the proof of appropriation gives the testimony on which the board 

limited the right to water for 60 acres:

Question. State the number of acres watered each subsequent year, and give 

the legal subdivisions on which the water is used.

Answer. Claimant increased the amount of land irrigated each year from 1882 

to the present time, and now has about 60 acres under cultivation and irrigation.

Question. State the acreage said ditch is capable of watering, and show on a 

map or plat, on a scale of 2 inches to the mile, the location of said ditch and the 

land it is capable of watering.

Answer. One hundred and fifty acres.

REMARKS. Claimant appropriated water sufficient for 150 acres of said land, and 

now claims water for said land. He does not use said water, has not heretofore, 

but if farming becomes more profitable he may desire to cultivate all of his land, 

and his appropriation was made to cover all of said land.

It will be seen from this testimony that only 60 acres had actually 

been watered, but that the claimant stated it was his intention at 

some future time, when irrigation became more remunerative, to 

water more land. The map made by the State engineer's office showed 

that about 100 acres of land belonging to the claimant could be 

watered, but that about 50 acres of land belonging to other parties 

could be watered from this'ditch, so that the claim for a possible irrigation of 150 acres from the ditch was correct. The maps and proofs 

of other claimants showed that about 435 acres of land had been 

reclaimed, and the actual necessities of this land had more than 

exhausted the water carried by the stream, so that the resulting shortage had led to litigation over these rights prior to the admission of 

Wyoming to statehood. This lack of an adequate water supply was 

shown by the gagings made by the State engineer's office, the volume 

in July being 5.25 cubic feet per second, while the aggregate of the 

appropriations made by the board of control on the restricted basis 

of the necessities of the land reclaimed was 6.21 cubic feet per second. 

If the claim of an appropriation for 150 acres, instead of 60, had been 

recognized by the board, the water for the additional 90 acres would 

have been taken away from lands alreadyxreclaimed and from present 

users, to be held as a speculative property by this claimant until it 

became valuable enough for him to use, or until, trading on the 

necessities of those now using it, he could compel them to purchase 

it from him.

The evils of basing appropriations of water on such considerations 

would not have ended with this individual. If his belief that he would
48 WATEE-EIGHT PEOBLEMS OF BIGHOEN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

at some future time require water enough for 150 acres of land constituted an appropriation, the belief of any appropriator on a stream that 

he might at some future time use more water would also have entitled 

him to the full amount of his probable necessities, and appropriations 

would be fixed not by physical conditions, but by the state of men's 

minds when filing claims. The first appropriation on this stream was 

for water sufficient to reclaim 100 acres, but the owners of that ditch 

had, prior to the adjudication, enlarged it, and had actually reclaimed 

110 acres additional, for which they received at the hands of the board 

of control an appropriation having a later priority. If, however, the 

contention of the appealing appropriator had been sustained, the 

appropriator holding the first priority could have maintained that he 

had intended to appropriate the whole stream and have taken it, 

while the other five appropriators, including the party appealing from 

the board's decision, would have been -compelled to look to him rather 

than to the mountains for their water supply.

It seems strange that such an indefinite and unreasonable basis for 

water rights should ever have had any defenders or received serious 

consideration; but until the court sustained the board's ruling public 

opinion in the State was very evenly divided as to the legality of the 

action. The reason for this lies in the fact that the evils of these 

extravagant grants are not at once manifest. The term "cubic foot 

per second " is, to the majority of irrigators, wholly meaningless, and 

this fact made them unable to appreciate either the effect of an allowance of their claims or the adequacy of the appropriation which the 

board of control had approved. When a claim had been made for 20, 

50, or 100 second-feet of water, and the claimant found that it had 

been cut down to 1, 2, or .3 second-feet, it was but natural that he 

should feel aggrieved and be inclined to look with distrust on the 

assurance that this volume was entirely sufficient to meet all his 

requirements. The result of basing appropriations on the volumes 

claimed from Amsden, Smith, and Hewes creeks is not, however, a 

matter of speculation.

On the last-named stream twenty-eight parties submitted proofs of 

appropriations, and the surveys of the engineer's office showed that 

each of them had used water. The aggregate volume of the appropriations approved by the board was 34.8 second-feet, which was less 

than half the 76 second-feet claimed by the first five. Subsequent 

experience has shown that the volume fixed by the board's order 

is more than the stream will furnish, and some of the later appropriators are now building a ditch from Tongue River; but if the 

stream does not carry 34 second-feet it certainly would not have supplied 76 second-feet, and the allotment of this volume to the first five 

appropriators would have left nothing for the remaining twenty-three. 

It is manifest, also, that they have never used more than the stream 

carries, and of course it is impossible to acquire an appropriation
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM LITTLE TONGUE BIVER. 49

without ever having diverted or used the water. The injustice of 

making these claims the foundation of adjudicated rights is strikingly 

shown in the case of this stream. The claim of the first appropriator 

was for 21 second-feet, and of the second for 10 second-feet, so that if 

these two had been given all they asked they would practically have 

owned the stream.

Smith Creek did not supply enough water to meet the actual needs 

of users when the priorities were determined. The order of the 

board limited the rights of all the appropriators to 13.97 cubic feet 

per second. This was probably in excess of the volume actually used, 

but it was a. great reduction from what was claimed, since that of the 

first appropriator alone was for 150 second-feet, or more than ten 

times the volume which the stream carries. The claimant of 150 

second-feet received 6 feet, and was indignant because he believed 

that he had been unjustly deprived of the difference.

LITTLE TONGUE EIVEE.

The rights to water from Little Tongue River, the principal tributary of Tongue River, have not as yet been determined. At the time 

of the adjudication there had not been a sufficiently thorough investigation of the physical conditions to enable the board to reach a satisfactory conclusion as to the merits of some of the questions which must 

be decided. One of these is a physical problem of great interest. It 

is a well-known fact that all of the streams draining the eastern slope 

of the Bighorn Mountains lose more or less water through underground 

channels. One of the branches of Powder River sinks, to reappear 

below with diminished volume. The losses on the South Fork of Clear 

Creek amount to a considerable percentage of its entire flow during 

the latter part of the irrigation season, and a ditch built to turn water 

therefrom into Crazy Woman Creek has been a failure, because the 

water diverted disappeared. But of all these streams the loss in 

Little Tongue River is the greatest.

During an examination made five years ago a number of funnelshaped openings were discovered, through which large volumes of 

water were disappearing, with no evidence of their reappearance. In 

one case the volume was measured and was found to be in excess of 

3 cubic feet per second. In the places examined the water sinks 

where streams cut across the upturned edges of a limestone stratum 

of great thickness. Whether the total volume lost from Little Tongue 

River is greater than that from the main stream is as yet unknown, 

but the percentage is greater and the loss more apparent. Those 

dependent on the stream have made many efforts to ascertain the 

location of these underground channels and close them up, and 

much has been accomplished in this direction. One of the parties 

engaged in this work claims that the water thus saved should not be 

subject to the rights of appropriators of the normal discharge, but 

IRE 23 4
50 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO.23.

should be wholly independent thereof. In his claim for a separate 

right and for its adjudication apart from the rights on the main 

stream he sets forth by affidavit the facts on which the claim is based. 

The affidavit is here given:

John R. Gatewood, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a citizen 

of the county and State aforesaid; that he is the person described in the annexed 

"Application for a permit to divert and appropriate the waters of the State of 

Wyoming," and that the water which he desires to appropriate from the South 

Fork of the Tongue Rivqr, one of the natural streams of the State, is water which 

has not as yet been appropriated by any person for " beneficial uses;" that in the 

said South Fork of Tongue River, back in the mountains, at places described in 

said "application," there are natural holes on the bottom of tho stream through 

which about 20 per cent of the natural flow of said water, at low water, escapes 

into the earth, and that, as far as affiant has been able to ascertain, does not again 

run into said stream or any other natural stream, but is wholly lost; that said 

affiant believes that he can save said water for beneficial uses; that he is the 

owner of possessory rights to agricultural lands in said county, and has not water 

to reclaim the same, and that by being allowed to save this water he verily believed, 

and does believe, that he can secure said water for said beneficial uses.

A list of the adjudicated rights in water district No. 5 is given in the 

First Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming, 1891-92, 

pages xxxiii to xxxvi and pages xxiii and xxiv. These tables are 

continued in the Third Biennial Report, 1895-96, page 176.

APPROPRIATIONS IN DIVISION III.

On the west side of the range but little has been done by the State 

irrigation authorities. Rights have been determined in the sixth district, but not in the fourth and seventh (see fig. 1), there being so 

large a surplus as to obviate any controversy among users.

DISTRICT 6.

The following order and tabulation gives the rights established in 

the sixth district and the form in which the entry of the board's action 

is made in the records of the board of control:

ORDER ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES AND AMOUNTS OF APPROPRIATIONS 

OF WATER FROM NO WOOD RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.

In the matter of the determination of the rights of appropriators of water from

No Wood River and tributaries, in water division No. 3, Bighorn County,

Wyoming.

In this matter the board of control having heretofore, at its regular meeting 

held on the 21st day of March, 1896, duly made and entered an order for the adjudication and determination of the rights to the use of the waters of No Wood 

River and its tributaries, in water division No. 3, and directing the State engineer 

to proceed as soon as possible and survey and measure all the ditches diverting 

water therefrom;

And it appearing that the State engineer, in pursuance of said order, after giving due and legal notice according to law to all appropriators from said stream 

and its tributaries, did survey and measure all the said ditches, and prepared and 

filed complete maps and a report in the office of the said board:

Thereafter N. H. Brown, superintendent of said water division No. 3, after due
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS FROM NO WOOD RIVER. 51

and legal notice to appropriators of water fixing the time and place of receiving 

proof of appropriation from said stream and its tributaries, did appear at the time 

and place fixed, and did take and receive the sworn proofs and testimony in writing of all persons appearing and claiming rights to water in said stream, and 

thereafter exposed said proof to public inspection on a day fixed according to law, 

and said proofs having been examined and no contests having been instituted were 

thereafter duly filed, with his report and findings, in the office of said board;

And now this matter coming regularly on for hearing and determination by the 

board of control, upon the records in the State engineer's office and the proofs of 

appropriation duly taken and submitted by said superintendent, and upon the 

maps and report of surveys and measurements of streams and ditches duly made 

by the State engineer and his assistants, and the board having now examined the 

records in the State engineer's office, the proofs of the beneficial use of water, filed 

in the office of said board, and having read the report and tabulation and heard 

and considered the recommendations of said N. H. Brown, superintendent of said 

division No. 3, that certificates of appropriation be issued, and the board, being 

now fully advised, finds as follows:

FINDINGS.

The board finds that the appropriations of water determined and established by 

this order were made from the following-named streams:

No Wood River proper and Bear Creek, Boxelder, Upper or Little Canyon Creek, 

Crooked Creek, Otter Creek, Spring Creek, Tensleep Creek, Broken Back Creek, 

Alkali Springs Creek, Paint Book Creek, all tributaries of No Wood proper.

Cherry Creek, tributary of Boxelder.

North Fork Spring Creek, tributary Spring Creek.

Lower Canyon Creek, tributary Tensleep.

North Fork Broken Back, tributary Broken Back.

Buffalo Flat Creek, tributary Alkali.

Medicine Lodge Creek, tributary Paint Rock.

Coon Holler or Coon Creek, tributary Spring.

That in order to adjudicate and establish the rights of the various appropriators 

from these several streams it is necessary, in addition to the determination of the 

order of priority and general priority number of each of the rights to water from 

No Wood and its tributaries, taken as a whole, for the board to determine and 

establish the priorities of right growing out of appropriations from each of said 

streams as between the appropriators therefrom themselves.

The board finds that the rights of appropriators from each of the various tributaries are subject to the rights of prior appropriators on the main stream below, 

or on the stream into which said tributary flows, and to these rights only.

Subject to the foregoing limitations and conditions, the board finds the name of 

the appropriators, the priority numbers of said appropriations, the maximum 

amounts thereof, the uses for which the water was appropriated, and the legal 

subdivisions of land on which the water appropriated is to be used and to which 

it is attached are as set forth in the following table.

ORDER.

It is therefore ordered by the board of control that each of the following-named 

appropriators from No Wood and its tributaries above namecl do have the use of the 

water of the stream from which said appropriation was made by him, or them, for 

the beneficial purpose for which acquired and for no other, and that the names of 

the appropriators, the priority number of each of said appropriations, the maximum amounts thereof, the names of the ditches or other diverting works through 

which the appropriation is made, the dates of said appropriations, the beneficial 

use to which the water is appropriated, and, when for irrigation, the description
52 WATER-EIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

of the land to which the water appropriated is attached, shall be the same as 

stated in the following table under its appropriate heading, which said table is 

hereby made a part of this order.

It is further ordered that each of the appropriations for irrigation shall be sufficient for the economical irrigation of the land described and no other, not to 

exceed 1 cubic foot of water per second of time for each 70 acres irrigated.

NO WOOD RIVER PROPER.

Priority 

number.o

5 1

11 2 

12 3

38 4

41 5

41 5

42 6

43 7

43 7

43 7 

43 7 

43 7

46 8

49 9 

49 9

49 9 

53 10 

5310

6017

62 18

6319

Name of ditch.

S.V. ...........

Cornell No. 1.. 

Mead No. 1 

Cornell No. 3..

.....do...... -

....do.......... 

.... .do... ....... 

.... .do.... ......

Umslopogaas 

No 2 

Western... .... 

.... -do. ...... ...

.....do..........

Eg .......... 

. _ .do. __ ....

Cornell No. 2,

enlargement. 

Harmony Mill* 

enlargement.

Name of appropriator.

JohnD. Gill. 

Enoch Cornell...

Chas. Mills- ......

Henry Jordan...

Louisa M. Smith. 

A. G. Smith......

A. L. Coleman... 

L. J. Diehl .......

Geo.A. Bell...... 

E. M. Eg.........

thur A. Ilg.

Henry Jordan . ..

Post-office address.

.....do.......... 

 do . ..

 do. ...... 

.....do.......... 

.....do. ...... ... 

.....do ..........

Redbank, Wyo.

Bonanza, Wyo. 

Hyattville,

Wyo. 

. .do. ........ . 

Bonanza, Wyo.

.....do...... .

Jordan, Wyo...

Date of appropriation.

May 1,1885

Apr. 2,1886 May 1,1886

May 13,1889

1889

1889

Mar. 15, 1890

Mar. 30,1890

.....do.. 

.....do....... 

..... do...,. .. 

.... -do. ......

Nov. 1,1890

Aug. 3,1893 

. __ do. _ ...

.....do. ...... 

Oct. 16,1893 

.... .do. ......

July 5,1895

Sept. 16, 1895

Jan. 4,1896

Use to which 

water is applied.

 .do ...... 

.....do......

.... .do... ...

.... .do ...

.....do......

.....do ...

.... .do..... .

Domestic 

and irrigation. 

.... .do... ... 

.....do ... 

.....do......

.....do .

.....do...... 

..... do. .

.....do...... 

.... .do... 

.....do 

 ..do......

.....do.... ..

Mechanical

Amount appropri- ated, in cubic

second. feet, per 

0.79

.30 

.15

3.21

.12

1.86

2 38

.88

.31 

.53

.74

.64

2.78 

1.14

4.08 

.71 

.68

1.71

.21

1.15

<a

55

30 

10

335

10

8

130

160

60

15 

37 

50

45

195

80

286

50 

48

120

15

BOXELDER CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

1 1

16 2 

21 3

'4 4

35 5

Helms No. 1 ... 

Wells No. 1 

Wells No. 2 ....

Helms No. 2...

Booth. 

Henry Helms,... 

Chas. Wells...... 

.....do............

Henry Helms....

..... do...... . 

. ....do ...... ....

..... do...... .

..... do.... ......

Apr., 1884

Apr., 1886 

May, 1887 

Sept. 1,188~

Sept., 1887

.....do...... 

.....do...... 

 ..do .-

. do......

0.57

.40 

.46 

.63

.31

40

28 

32 

44

22

UPPER OR LITTLE CANTON CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

13 1

40 2 

45 3

55 4 

55 4

Red Bank...... 

Umslopogaas ..

Hillside .... 

..... do. ...... ...

H. A. Richards.. 

A. L. Coleman...

C.S.Walu. ......

Redbank,Wyo:

.....do ...... 

... ..do ......

.....do..........

.....do ......

June, 1886

May, 1889 

Sept., 1890

Feb. 16,1894 

.....do.......

Irrigati o n 

and stock. 

Irrigation..

.....do...... 

. ....do ......

4.57

.50 

.10

.93 

.50

320

35

7

65 

85

CROOKED CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

8 1

a 1

F. D. Helmer, 

or Brunner 

No. 1.

Frank D.Helmer. 

F. S. Ainsworth .

Redbank,Wyo. 

... ..do..........

May 15,1885 

..... do.... ...

Irrigation..

and mechanical.

1 

1 14

70

80

« The first number is the general priority number in reference to the rights to water from 

No Wood River and its tributaries taken as a whole; the second is the priority number in 

reference to the rights from each stream.
MEAD.] APPROPRIATIONS PROM NO WOOD RIVER. 

OTTER CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

53

Priority 

number.

4 1

7 2

28 3

31 4

58 5

Name of ditch.

Daly ..........

Name of appropriator.

C. E. Shaw.-- 

 do. ...... 

 .do...... .... ..

C.J. Higbie.... ..

Post-office address.

.... .do.-. ......

... ..do. . ........

.....do ......

Date of appropriation.

Apr. 1,1885

May 10,1885

1887

May, 1888

Nov. 7,1894

Use to which 

water is applied.

 -.do 

 do... ...

 do 

all «!

1 05

,66

54

351

,71

*1I1

7%

38

176

50

SPRING CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

5 1 

5 1

16 2

17 3 

,35 4

52 5

Emge & Robinson No. 2.

Emge & Rob 

inson (Hollywood). 

Standish & 

Henderson. 

Tunnel.........

ment, No. 48.

Wm. Robinson ..

Wm. Robinson .. 

Elmer Chatfleld.

E. A. Walu. 

Redbank, Wyo. 

. ....do-.. ......

Tensleep, Wyo.

 do 

.... .do ...

 .do ......

May 1,1885 

.... .do.... 

1886

Mar. 20,1887 

Sept., 1888

Sept. 14, 1893

Irrigation . . 

.....do......

.... .do 

.... .do ... 

....-do......

.... .do 

0.43

1.43

.43

1.93

2.86

.36

3C

lOf

3( 

13E

m

?£

TENSLEEP CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVEB.

?, 1

7 2

10 3

22 4

30 5 

44 6

48 7

Winn ..........

Bay State No. 1

Perfection- .

Bay State No. 2

Bessie C. Burke 

Bay State Cattle 

Co.

Fred Q.S.HesseBay State Cattle 

Co.

 do 

 do. 

Buffalo, Wyo-_ 

Tensleep, Wyo.

 ..do ......

Sept. 1,1884

May 10,1885

1885 

Aug. 1,1887

Apr. 10,1888 

May, 1890

July 2,1892

.....do . 

 do... ...

.....do...... 

. .do......

 .do 

243

3.00

1.57 

43

7.14 

.43

1 14

IfiO

210

110 

30

500 

30

80

BROKEN BACK CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER.

7 1

10 2 

18 3

28 4

28 4

28 4 

29 5

41 6

47 7 

47 7

47 7 

57 8

CarothersNo.2 

Cranky Jack...

North Fork.

Carothers No. 3

Carothers No. 5 

Carothers No. 6

Carothers 

North Fork 

No. 1. 

Williams .......

Ed Carothers ....

John D. Hopkins 

W. R. Williams..

... ..do ... .... .

 .do... .........

H. E. Miller--

Ed Carothers. .. . 

 ..do .... ... -

.....do......... ...

W. E. WmiamsHyattville, 

Wyo. 

Tensleep, Wyo. 

. _ .do __ ......

Hyattville,

Wyo.

 do ......

Hyattville, 

Wyo. 

. __ do _ ... ...

.....do ......

May 10,1885

1885 

Mar. 25,1887

1887

1887

1887 

Apr. 1,1888

1889

1890 

1890

1890 

July 10,1894

Irrigation..

.... .do... ... 

 ..do... ...

.....do......

 do ......

 ..do...... 

.....do- ..

.... . do..... .

.....do...... 

 .do. 

.....do 

.... .do..... .

.21

1 

.64

.09

.36

.29

.71

.08

.43

.08

.06 

.29

15

70 

45

6

25

20 

50

B

30 

5

4 

20

PAINT ROCK CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD EIVER.

6 1

6 1 

14 2

14 2

14 2

19 3

19 3

28 4

27 5

 -do .......

__ .do __ ... ...

.... .do .... ..

.....do ......

Elk

John Luman . 

wals.

Wyo. 

. do. ... 

.....do... .......

.....do... .......

Hyattville,

Wyo.

Wyo.

May 2,1885

.....do. ...

Sept. 11, 1886

_ .do. _ ...

.....do. ...

Apr. 8,1887

.....do- .

1887. 

Fall, 1887

 do .

 ..do 

.... .do 

.... .do--....

 ..do... ...

... ..do......

.....do.....

....-do .

43

1 14 

96

15

86

83

89

86

2.86

30

80

fi7

10

fiO

58

62

60

son
54 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23. 

PAINT ROCK CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF NO WOOD RIVER Continued.

Priority 

number.

27' 5

27 5

28 6

33 7

37 8

37 8

37 8

5010

5010

5411

5612

5612

5916

59 16

59 16

59 16

Name of ditch.

Elk. ...... ..... .

..... do ...

.....do 

.... .do..... .

Shuck & Wilson

.... .do.... ..

Hyattville. -

South Side... . Weintz. ........

 .do..........

 do ....

Name of appropriator.

Jas. D. Alien 

Bernstein, D.B.

Stanton, agent.

WillisJ. Booth..

H. D. Hendricks.

rn u Nelson

Zelotes Wilson. . .

S. W.Hyatt 

Lee Nansell _ .

H. W. Meyers ...

Post-office address.

Wyo. 

.....do----.-...

Wyo.

.... .do ......

 do. 

..... do ......

..... do . ......

 .do .....

.... .do... 

 do 

Bonanza, Wyo.

Wyo. 

 . .do .....

.....do ..........

Date of appropriation.

Fall, 1887

 do. ...

1887

May, 1888

May 1,1889

..... do-. 

 do.. .

Mar. 20, 1893

 do... 

Jan. 23,1894

July 2,1894

 .. do... .

July 5,1895

 .do .

 do--

Use to which 

water is applied.

 do 

.... .do... 

.....do......

 .do......

 do......

 do 

.....do......

 do......

 .do .

 .do 

 do 

..... do 

.....do......

 do 

..... do 

P_^Q fl

gog

a<s^

2.64

1.43

5

54

1.79

1.57

43

.79

1.71

.18

1

.86

.43

1

.51

.50

1

SR"S

I

185

100

as

125

110

HO

55

120

13

70

60

29.3

70

36

CHERRY CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF BOXELDER CREEK.

61 1 Helms No. 3... Henry Helms. ... Redbank,Wyo. July 11,1895 Irrigation .26 18

LOWER OR BIG CANYON CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF TENSLEEP CREEK.

3 1 

15 2 

51 3

HunsingerNo.l 

HunsingerNo.2

Ditch.

Jacob Hunsinger 

--...do... _ ...

mons (C. E. 

Shaw, agent.)

Tensleep, Wyo. 

.....do. .... 

.....do. .. .......

Oct. 15,1894 

Oct. 1,1886 

Sept. 4,1893

Irrigation.. 

. _ .do. ... 

 do. 

2.28 

2.64 

3.64

160 

185 

255

BUFFALO FLAT CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF ALKALI CREEK.

36 1 Buffalo Flat... John J. Smith . . . Hyattville, 

Wyo.

1888 Irrigation .93 65

MEDICINE LODGE CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF PAINT ROCK CREEK.

9 1 

9 1

10 2

20 3

20 3 

26 4 

26 4 

32 5

34 6

34 6

George Bayne . 

 do . 

Alien & Nelson

..... do.......... 

Highland ...... 

WaluNo.2. . 

HyattNo. 2 

Anthony.......

-...do.........

D. V. Bayne... ...

Cassell. F. P. 

Carr, administrator. <

Theodore F. Nelson. 

Jas. D. Alien.. 

LorenzoD.Walu 

 do ...... .. 

Saml. W.Hyatt. .

David Matthews.

Hyattville, 

Wyo.

..... do 

..... do ... 

.....do.......... 

.... .do. ...... 

..... do. ...... 

 do ......

..... do. .........

..... do .....

May 10,1885 

.... .do. 

1885

Apr. 10,1887

 do. ......

Nov., 1887 

.... _do_ 

May 10,1888

Sept. 20, 1888

.....do. ......

Irrigation. . 

 do... 

.....do. .

.... .do ......

..... do 

.....do...... 

.....do 

.....do......

 do......

.. do......

3.19 

2.53

.36

1.10

.87 

.49 

.57 

1 81

.08

3.50

223 

177

25

77

61

84 

40

K5

5

245

COON HOLLER OR COON CREEK, TRIBUTARY OF SPRING CREEK.

S9 1 Dutch. . ....... Hyattville,

Wyo.

May 17,1889 Irrigation.. .26 18
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPlR NO. 53 PL. VI

BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAM AT NORTH END OF DOME LAKE RESERVOIR,
MEAD.] RESEEVOIRS. 55

It is further ordered that certificates of appropriation be issued to the said 

appropriators in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing findings and 

order.

In witness whereof, the president of the State board of control has hereunto 

set his hand this 10th day of March, A. D. 1898.

KESEKVOIKS.

By drawing on the larger streams when the smaller ones were 

exhausted it has been possible to utilize a large percentage of the 

flow from the east side of the range without resorting to storage, 

but the time is approaching when storage will be necessary if the reclaimed area is to be extended. Storage has been somewhat delayed, 

because there is no law at present denning and protecting rights to 

stored water. This is one of the legislative questions to be dealt 

with in the near future. Much can be done whenever it becomes 

necessary. The sites for mountain reservoirs are both numerous 

and valuable. From the summit of Cloud Peak over 100 mountain 

lakes can be counted, and a large percentage of these will in time be 

utilized.

Actual construction has begun on only one of these reservoir sites 

Dome Lake. The location of this lake is shown in fig. 5, and a 

detailed sketch of the lake and surroundings is given in fig. 7. The 

elevation of the lake is 8,720 feet, as determined by the topographers 

of the United States Geological Survey during the season of 1897. 

The area of the water surface is 320 acres, the average depth 20 feet, 

and the total flow of water 6,400 acre-feet. The estimated cost of the 

reservoir is $50,000. The improvements have been made with the 

double object of storing water for irrigation and of making this point 

an attractive summer resort.

The importance of the lakes on the head waters of Piney Creek is 

clearly shown in the able report of Capt. Hiram M. Chittenden, giving the results of his preliminary examinations of reservoir sites in 

Wyoming and Colorado. 1 The relative location of these lakes is 

shown on the Cloud Peak topographic atlas sheet of the United States 

Geological Survey, the area being mapped during the field season of 

1898. From a report by Mr. Frangois E. JMatthes, the following facts 

concerning South Piney Creek have been obtained:

The South Fork of South Piney Creek flows from the snow banks 

and glaciers east of Cloud Peak, and has therefore an abundant water 

supply throughout the year. Its valley, above the point where the 

ditch to Rock Creek begins, is the bed of an ancient glacier, and is 

thickly covered with morainal deposits of irregular disposition, giving 

rise to a remarkable number of lakes of all sizes. Among these are 

Cloud Peak Lake and Mead Lake, shown in fig. 8, both of which

1 Preliminary examination of reservoir sites in Wyoming and Colorado, by Capt. Hiram M. Chittenden, with monograph on Reservoirs and their effects on the floods of the Mississippi system, 

by James A. Seddon: House Doc. No. 141, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session. Washington, 1898. 

110 pp., 10 folding maps.
56 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

have at various times been proposed for reservoir sites. Both are 

deep and are surrounded by steep mountain sides; the altitude of 

Cloud Peak Lake is 9,703 feet and of Mead Lake 9,950 feet, approximately. (SeePL III, B.) 

Unfortunately but one 

of the two main canyons 

on the east side of Cloud 

Peak drains into these 

lakes. The other (lesser) 

canyon joins the main 

canyon half a mile below 

Cloud Peak Lake.

Another large body of 

water, Elk Lake, draining into the South Fork 

of South Piney Creek, 

lies on a broad shelf and 

is very shallow. The 

lake is at an elevation 

of 9,850 feet. Its catchment area is very small, 

almost entirely above 

timber line, and contains nothing larger 

than insignificant rills. 

In spring it probably receives a large amount of 

water from the melting 

snowdrifts on the peaks. 

The outlet of the lake is 

wide and flat and of a 

swampy character. The 

stream at that point is 

quite small, but increases farther on. It 

apparently sinks into 

the ground on leaving 

the lake, a phenomenon 

quite common in a country covered with glacial 

debris. By building a 

low dam the area of the 

lake will be considerably

increased, but the water supply will be limited practically to that obtained in spring from snow banks which entirely disappear each summer. 

The North Fork of South Piney Creek flows through a valley similar

FIG. 7. Dome Lake reservoir.
MEAD.] KESERVOIKS. 57

to that of the South Fork. The number of lakes, as shown in fig. 8, 

is even larger than on that branch, but few are available for waterstorage purposes. Among these are the Kearney Lakes, altitude 

9,156 feet, in reality one lake, which, however, is fast being converted

FIG. 8. Lakes at head of Piney and Goose creeks.

into two separate lakes, as shown on PL VII, by the sediment of two 

small brooks entering near the middle, opposite each other. The 

twin lakes thus formed are deep and can easily be dammed at the outlet. They receive all the water from the glaciers in the canyons north
58 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OP BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

of Cloud Peak and that from the perpetual snow banks on the peaks 

of the main range. It is expected that surveys for a reservoir dam at 

these lakes will be commenced early next season.

The northern forks only of Clear Creek were mapped during 1898, 

but a general survey of the entire drainage area revealed the fact 

that each of the half dozen canyons which form its head waters contains a number of lakes, some of them almost as large as the Kearney 

Lakes. The entire basin is thickly covered with morainal ridges; it 

is extremely rough and practically inaccessible.

Sites along Tongue River will serve to increase greatly the acreage 

that stream will reclaim, while on the western slope the improvement 

of the lakes on Medicine Lodge and Tensleep creeks will serve not 

only to double the reclaimed area but to call attention to a region of 

unsurpassed scenic* attractions.

The maps filed in the State engineer's office serve to show the location of the projects on which work was begun and the nature of the 

improvements proposed.

Names, superficial area, and contents of the reservoirs in the Bighorn Mountains 

for which permits have been issued by the State engineer.

Name.

Dana reservoir....... ......................................

Kearney reservoir........................... ....... ........

Dome Lake reservoir... ................,...--..--..-....-_-

Willow reservoir.... .......................................

Treichler & Parsons reservoir...... ................... ....

Ella reservoir _......-.......................-...-,-..__....

Denio reservoir............... ......................... ....

Cross & Cruse Co. reservoir...... ................ ..-.-----

Elk Lake reservoir........... ................... _ ........

Cloud Peak reservoir ..._...._............................-

South Piney reservoir ......................................

Superficial 

area in 

acres.

4

146.2

211.2

57.8

48

5.1

45

193. 75

21

197.55

170

95.4

Contents 

in acrefeet.

25

3,801

3,168

650

450

61.2

1,000

1,743.75

2,570

2,500

1,050

ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS.

The commissioners in charge of the districts described in this 

bulletin have to deal with unusual conditions. The division of a 

stream among users is a difficult problem under the most favorable circumstances, but the commissioners of these districts are confronted 

with complications seldom encountered in equal measure elsewhere. 

These are:

1. The interchange of water between streams in the same district 

and its transfer across district boundaries.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

OUTLET OF KEARNEY LAKE RESERVOIR ON NORTH PINEY CREEK,
MEAD.] ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS. 59

2. The frequent use of streams as part of a ditch or canal and making not one stream but three or four streams part of a single system.

3. The attaching to one piece of land of rights from more than one 

stream through one or more ditches.

4. The construction of canals to carry water across divides in remote 

and inaccessible locations in the mountains, thereby rendering the 

regulation of head gates expensive and difficult and the measurement 

of stream flow practically impossible.

Even when the streams are gaged and the commissioner knows the 

supply to be divided he is often unable to perform his work to his 

own satisfaction or that of irrigators. The wide and rapid fluctuation 

of streams is to blame for this. From the records of the gagings of 

Clear Creek, made by the State engineer and the Geological Survey, 

it is seen that the discharge ranges from three or four times the total 

volume appropriated to about one-third this volume, and that at times 

these two extremes are reached within a few days of each other.

The gaging station is below the mountain ditches, and its record 

does not show what they divert, but it does show how rapid must be 

the commissioner's movements to protect the rights to the 232 secondfeet appropriated. On May 23, 1896, as shown in fig. 3, less than 

100 second-feet was passing over the weir; on the 24th there was over 

200. On June 3 a flow of 504 second-feet permitted all users to waste 

water, if they so desired. Three days later the discharge was less 

than the amount appropriated. On the 19th the flow was 209 secondfeet; on the 29th it was 82. The distance from the highest to the 

lowest head gate on this stream is 50 miles, and an examination of the 

map (fig. 2) will show the haphazard location of the appropriations and 

the rapid changes necessary to protect these rights when the demand 

begins to exceed the supply. The commissioner would have enough to 

do in times of scarcity to regulate this stream only, but he has in addition to watch the fluctuations of half a dozen others and keep track 

both of their natural discharge and of the water turned in from other 

streams.

While doing this he can only estimate the volume to be distributed. 

From the highest ditch on Clear Creek to the foot of the mountain is 

a day's journey. It takes half that time to go from the highest land 

irrigated on Rock Creek to the head gate of the Piney feeder in the 

mountains along that stream. From the last ditch on Prairie Dog 

to the first on the stream which supplies it the distance is 40 miles 

in one direction, and it is an equal distance to the last ditch along 

the valley of that stream in almost the opposite direction. Without 

telephone or telegraph connection, the commissioner can deal only 

with what he sees. Under the circumstances the success achieved 

has been little less than marvelous.

The water turned from Big Goose Creek into Little Goose Creek 

enters that stream 9 miles from and 2,000 feet above the land first
60 WATER-RIGHT PROBLEMS OF BIGHORN MOUNTAINS. [NO. 23.

irrigated. The head of the ditches can only be reached after a day's 

journey, and frequent inspections can not be made. Because irrigators can not know the facts, they are all the more likely to resent 

any interference with their supply. Appropriators of the natural 

flow are sometimes disposed to believe that those dependent on some 

other source get more than their share, and vice versa. Users of 

water along Piney Creek, Big Goose Creek, and other large streams 

do not look with favor on the diversions into other drainage basins 

where the subsequent regulation is so expensive and difficult. It is, 

therefore, a high tribute to the honesty and tact of the commissioners 

and superintendent to say that they have thus far performed their 

duties in such a way as almost entirely to avert litigation. To enable 

them to continue this, however, their labors should be supplemented 

by comprehensive measurements of the discharge of these several 

streams. The turning of water across divides and the use of a stream 

as part of a ditch is no doubt economical, but unless the methods so 

largely employed here are supplemented by numerous stream gagings? 

it is hard to see how commissioners are to distribute successfully a 

supply coming from three or four sources.

Lack of gagings add to the perplexities of the State engineer. It 

is a part of his duty to refuse permits for additional ditches when, 

the water supply is exhausted. So long as he has no knowledge of the 

volume being diverted, nor where it goes, he has to depend largely on 

conjecture. The extensive construction of reservoirs along the channels of these streams which is certain to result in the near future, 

and the use of their channels to transport the stored water to the 

place of use, will aggravate these complications. That they can all 

be removed is not to be doubted, but to accomplish this it will be 

necessary to have a full understanding of all the conditions, and 

foremost among these is the amount of water there is to be stored, 

divided, and used.
INDEX.

Page.

Administrative difficulties, discussion of. 58-60 

Amsden Creek, appropriations from..... 46-48

Barr reservoir site, description of. - -. 58

Big'Canyon Creek, appropriations from. 54

Big Goose Creek, appropriations from... 43-45

map showing lakes at head of.... - 57

Bighorn Mountains, plate showing view of 11 

Billy Creek ditch, irrigation from..... 19,20,33

Blue Gap ditch, irrigation from....... 20,23,27

Board of control, work of..._.......-.. 14-16

Bond, Fred, stream measurements by. -. - 39 

Boxelder Creek, appropriations from.... 52

Broken Back Creek, appropriations from. 53 

Buffalo, stream measurements near... 30-31 

Buffalo Flat Creek, appropriations from. 54 

Burton ditch, irrigation from............ 20,23

Canton ditch, irrigation from ............ 20,23

Chittenden, H. M., cited .................. 55

Clear Creek, measurements of............ 28-30

map showing irrigation systems on.. 29 

diagram showing discharge of.--.-... 31 

appropriations from. __._.. _ 31-32,38 

diversion of water from....... _._ 33-35

Cloud Peak, plate showing vie w of....... 11

Cloud Peak Lake reservoir site, description of................................. 55-56,58

Cook ditch, irrigation from............ 20,23,27

Coon Creek, appropriations from _..... 54

Crazy Woman Creek, appropriations from 18-28 

Crooked Creek, appropriations from..... 52

Cross & Cruse Co. reservoir site, description of.................................... 58

Dana reservoir site, description of.... _ 58

Denio reservoir site, description of . __ 58 

Devoe ditches, irrigation from ........ 20,23,27

Dick ditch, irrigation from ............ 20,23,27

Dome Lake reservoir, plate showing. 54 

description of.......................... 55,58

map showing .................. ..... 56

Dundee ditch, irrigation from............ 37

Duty of water, amount of.......... ... 24-25,38

Elk Lake reservoir site, plate showing .. 34 

description of.......................... 56,58

Ella reservoir site, description of......... 58

Fisher ditches, irrigation from........... 37

Fort Collins ditch, irrigation from.... 20,23,27

French Creek, appropriations from ... 33-35,37 

Gorgen ditch, irrigation from............ 37

Harris ditches, irrigation from --.--... 20,23,27 

Hewes Creek, appropriations from. ...... 46,48

Page. 

Holt ditch, irrigation from ............ 20,23,27

Johnson Creek, appropriations from..... 38

Kearney Lake reservoir site, description

of................................ .. 57,58

plate showing view of.... ... 58

Kelly Creek ditches, irrigation from 20,23 

Kennedy ditch, irrigation from........ 20,23,27

Kings bury ditches, irrigation from. 20,23 

Land reclaimed, acreage of..........._. 12-13

Last Chance ditch, appropriations from... 43-45 

Little Canyon Creek, appropriations 

from.......__.......................... 54

Little Goose Creek, appropriations from. 43-45 

map showing lakes at head of......... 57

Little Tongue River, map showing ditches

from .... ..................... 46

appropriations'from .................. 49-50

Loss of water in transmission, allowance 

for........................................ 38^0

Lower Canyon Creek, appropriations 

from ............_......_....... 54

Massacre Hill, plate showing view of 36 

Matthes,F. E.,cited....................... 55

Mayhew & Gorgen ditch, irrigation from. 37

Mead Lake reservoir site, plate showing. 34

description of......_..........__... 55-56

Medicine Lodge Creek, appropriations 

from ........ ........ . 54

Miller ditch, irrigation from ....... 20,23,27

Mitchell & Long ditch, irrigation from. 20,23,27 

Moeller ditches, irrigation from.. . 37 

Moreton ditches, irrigation from...... 20,23,27

Muddy Creek ditch, irrigation from .. 20,23 

Newell, F. H., letter of transmittal by... 9 

No Wood River, appropriations from.... 50-52

North Fork ditches, irrigation from 19,20,23,27 

North Fork of Crazy Woman ditch, irrigation from....-.-..---....-......---. 20,23,37

Otter Creek, appropriations from......... 53

Paint Rock Creek, appropriations from.. 53-54 

Piney Creek, plate showing vie w of...... 32

plate showing reservoir sites on. 34 

diversion of water from .. .. .. 35-36 

map of ditches diverting water from. 35 

appropriations from ...... ........ 38

map showing lakes at head of......... 57

Prairie Dog Creek, appropriations from. 35-36 

map of ditches diverting water to.... 35

Px ditch, irrigation from-................. 20,23

Red Bark ditch, irrigation from.......... 20,23

61
62 INDEX.

Redmond, Manlius, irrigation by......... 12,31

Reservoir sites, description of..-.. _. _ 55-58 

Rock Creek, appropriations from .... 38

Sayles Creek, appropriations from... 38 

Shell Creek, appropriations from ........ 38

Smith Creek, appropriations from.... 46,48,49

Smith ditch, irrigation from........ 19,20,23,27

Smith v. Devoe decree, extract from.. 18-19,33 

criticism of ............................ 21-28

Sneider ditch, irrigation from............ 37

South Piney reservoir site, description

of......... .......................... 56-57,58

Spring Creek, appropriations from ... 53 

Storage, necessity of.__..._ ._...... 27,55

Tensleep Creek, appropriations from.... 53

Thompson & Matthews ditch, irrigation

from .... .............................. 20,23,27

Thompson Bros, ditch, irrigation from.. 20,23 

Tongue River, map showing ditches from

tributaries of.-......--...---. .... 44,46

plate showing flume in canyon 

of............-..... ...... ....... 44

appropriations from..... .......... 45-46

Treichler & Parsons reservoir site, description of ..... .. . ........ 58

Underground channels, loss of water 

through................................ 49-50

Upper Canyon Creek, appropriations 

from ................... ..... ........ 52

Upper Phil Kearney ditch, appropriations from .... ......... ...... ... 40-43

Water districts, boundaries of ........... 17-18

Water rights, value of. ........... 13-14

Willow reservoir site, description of..... 58
1895.

Sixteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1894-95, Part II, 

Papers of an economic character, 1895; octavo, 598 pp.

Contains a paper on the public lands and their water supply, by F. H. Newell, illustrated 

by a large map showing the relative extent and location of the vacant public lands; also a 

report on the water resources of a portion of the Great Plains, by Robert Hay.

A geological reconnoissance of northwestern Wyoming, by George H. Eldridge, 

1894; octavo, 72 pp. Bulletin No. 119 of the United States Geological Survey; 

price, 10 cents.

Contains a description of the geologic structure of portions of the Bighorn Range and 

Bighorn Basin, especially with reference to the coal fields, and remarks upon the water 

supply and agricultural possibilities.

Report of progress of the division of hydrography for the calendar years 1893 and 

1894, by F. H. Newell, 1895; octavo, 176 pp. Bulletin No. 131 of the United 

States Geological Survey; price, 15 cents.

Contains results of stream measurements at various points, mainly within the arid region, 

and records of wells in a number of counties in western Nebraska, western Kansas, and 

eastern Colorado.

1896.

Seventeenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1895-96, Part 

II, Economic geology and hydrography, 1896; octavo, 864 pp.

Contains papers on "The underground water of the Arkansas Valley in eastern Colorado," by G. K. Gilbert: " The water resources of Illinois," by Frank Leverett, and " Preliminary report on the artesian waters of a portion of the Dakotas," by N. H. Darton.

Artesian-well prospects in the Atlantic Coastal Plain region, by N. H. Darton, 

1896; octavo, 230 pp., 19 plates. Bulletin No. 138 of the United States Geological Survey; price, 20 cents.

Gives a description of the geologic conditions of the coastal region from Long Island, 

N. Y., to Georgia, and contains data relating to many of the deep wells.

Report of progress of the division of hydrography for the calendar year 1895, by 

F. H. Newell, hydrographer in charge, 1896; octavo, 356 pp. Bulletin No. 140 

of the United States Geological Survey; price, 25 cents.

Contains a description of the instruments and methods employed in measuring streams 

and the results of hydrographic investigations in various parts of the United States.

189».

Eighteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1896-97, Part 

IV, Hydrography, 1897; octavo, 756 pp.

Contains a "Report of progress of stream measurements for the calendar year 1896," by 

Arthur P. Davis; "The water resources of Indiana and Ohio," by Frank Leverett; L 'New 

developments in well boring and irrigation in South Dakota," by N. H. Darton, and 

"Reservoirs for irrigation," by J. D. Schuyler.

1898.

Nineteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1897-98, Part 

IV, Hydrography, 1899; octavo, 814 pp. 4-

Contains a "Report of progress of stream measurements for the calendar year 189V* 

by F. H. Newell and others; "The rock waters of Ohio," by Edward Orton, and "A preliminary report on the geology and water resources of Nebraska west of the one hundred 

and third meridian," by N. H. Darton.

Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers.

This series of papers is designed to present in pamphlet form the results of stream measurements and of special investigations. A list of these, with other information, is given on 

the outside (or fourth) page of this cover.

Survey bulletins can be obtained only by prepayment of cost, as noted above. 

Postage stamps, checks, and drafts can not be accepted. Money should be transmitted by postal money order or express order, made payable to the Director of 

the United States Geological Survey. Correspondence relating to the publications 

of the Survey should be addressed to The Director, United States Geological 

Survey, Washington, D. C.

IRR23
WATER-SUPPLY A1STD IRRIGATION PAPERS.

1. Pumping water for irrigation, by Herbert M. Wilson, 1896.

2. Irrigation near Pho?nix, Arizona, by Arthur P. Davis, 1897.

3. Sewage irrigation, by George W. Rafter, 1897.

4. A reconnoissance in southeastern Washington, by Israel C. Russell, 1897.

5. Irrigation practice on the Great Plains, by E. B. Cowgill, 1897.

6. Underground waters of southwestern Kansas, by Erasmus Haworth, 1897.

7. Seepage waters of northern Utah, by Samuel Fortier, 1897.

8. Windmills for irrigation, by E. C. Murphy, 1897.

9. Irrigation near Greeley, Colorado, by David Boyd, 1897.

10. Irrigation in Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, by F. C. Barker, 1898.

11. River heights for 1896, by Arthur P. Davis, 1897.

12. Water resources of southeastern Nebraska, by Nelson Horatio Darton, 1898.

13. Irrigation systems in Texas, by W. F. Hutson, 1898.

14. New tests of pumps and water lifts used in irrigation, by O. P. Hood, 1898.

15. Operations at river stations, 1897, Part 1,1898.

16. Operations at river stations, 1897. Part II, 1898.

17. Irrigation near Bakersfield, California, by C. E. Grunsky, 1898.

18. Irrigation near Fresno, California, by C. E. Grunsky, 1898.

19. Irrigation near Merced, California, by C. E. Grunsky, 1899.

20. Experiments with windmills, by Thomas O. Perry, 1899.

21. Wells of Indiana, by Frank Leverett, 1899.

22. Sewage irrigation, Part II, by George W. Rafter, 1899.

23. Water-right problems of the Bighorn Mountains, by Elwood Mead, 1899.

In addition to the above, there are in various stages ot preparation other papers 

relating to the measurement of streams, the storage of water, the amount available 

from underground sources, the efficiency of windmills, the cost of pumping, and 

other details relating to the methods of utilizing the water resources of the country. Provision has been made for printing these by the following clause in the 

sundry civil act making appropriations for the year 1896-97:

Provided, That hereafter the reports of the Geological Survey in relation to the 

gauging of streams and to the methods of utilizing the water resources may be 

printed in octavo form, not to exceed 100 pages in length and 5,000 copies in number; 1,000 copies of which shall be for the official use of the Geological Survey, 

1,500 copies shall be delivered to the Senate, and 2,500 copies shall be delivered to 

the House of Representatives, for distribution. [Approved June 11,1896; Stat. L., 

vol. 29, p. 453.J

The maximum number of copies available for the use of the Geological Survey 

is 1,000. This quantity falls far short of the demand, so that it is impossible to 

supply all requests. Attempts are made to send these pamphlets to persons who 

have rendered assistance in their preparation through replies to schedules or who 

have furnished data. Requests made for a certain paper and stating a reason for 

asking for it are granted whenever practicable, but it is impossible to comply 

with general demands, such as to have all of the series sent indiscriminately. 

Application for these papers should be made either to Members of Congress or to 

THE DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

Washington, D. C. 

IRR 23