The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-01-24
Asking for Water,
KISIBLE COUNTY, Tex, Jan. 10.

h1MBLE COUNTY, Tex, Jan. IL.
Editor of The Statesman:
We would, through your paper, call
attention to question of vital i'm
portance to us in this part of the
state. 1t has reference to our water
supply. Western Texas IS but poor
ly watered. Often Il single stream
affords the country on each side of it
for ten or fifteen miles its only water.
Wells in many places cannot be OBJ
tanned either by digging or boring.
Now, if the water in these streams is
the property of the riparian proprie-
tor, and he has the right to fence the
stream as far up and down it as his
land extends, then a great part of our
land becomes ValueleSS to its present
owners. The recommendation in the
governors message to reserve hereaf-
ter in the sale Of public lands strips
of watered land for public use, if act.
ed on by the legislature, could
do us in this country no
good, because all the watered
land here is already in the hands of
private parties. Are then, our lands
lying back of the river surveys, en-
tirely cut off from water? Is it true
that running water is not free, and
that individuals can acquire sepa-
rate and exclusive right therefor If
so we have wandered a long ways
from the common law. By that law
the upper proprietor on running
stream cannot use the stream for irri-
cation. if he by SO doing cuts off a
sufficient supply of water from the
land owner below. BY the same law
an owner of land lying back from a
stream had a right OF way over his
neighbors' land to get to the water.
Does not the common law clearly
teach that air and running water are
free; that you are entitled to. what
you can use and no more; and that
you must not shut off my wind and
water? Are our legislators prohibited
by our constitution from making
a law requiring riparian pro-
prietors to allow public ways
over their lands to the
streams, so that all the land drained
by a stream may receive its water
supply therefrom. We think this
can be done, and ought to be done.
1t may be said that the state sold
these lands without reserviDg a right
of way over them to the water, and
that, therefore. she cannot now claim
it. The right of way results from
necessity and exists without any
reservation in the grant. (See Kent's
Commentaries 3rd vol, under the
following heads: ways" Riparian
Right" Running Waters" etc).
If, however, our legislators could
lay aside their books, and quit search
ing there to find out what is right and
just, and make trip through West
ern Texas, take look at the country,
study nature in these parts, inquire
what natural right and justice here
demands, and ask themselves what
is necessary to make our lands
available, and our country in
habltable, we think they would
not be long in finding it right and
necessary to open up the water to all
land owners whose lands are within
reach of the streams. THERE'S a river
in this part of the state which is now
fenced for about twenty wiles on one
side and about thirty on the other,
thus cutting off the back lands entire
" from the water in said stream. In
our county the lands on the head
waters of the small streams bring
prices far above that of other lands IN
the county, because the purchaser
knows that by buying few hundred
acres, lying on both sides of the
water, he secures the use and benefit
of thousands OF acres adjacent with
out buying, or which he can buy at a
low price after securing the water.
We ask for law opening up the rum
ming streams to all lands drained by
them, by public ways or lanes, rum
ming out from these streams at right
angles, at convenient distances, say
every two miles. Then let the state
or counties pay private land owners
the damages they may sustain from
opening up these public WAYS. r.