The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-10
THE QUESTION OF WAITER RIGHTS

The Utah Irrigation Commission, OF
which Hon. L. w. ShurthR is Presi-
dent and Col. G. L. Stevenson is Sec
rotary, have formulated an article On
IRRIGATION and Water Rights to be sub
mitted for adoption by the Constitu-
tfonal Convention. 1t has already been
published in The Herald with some
brief comments, to the effect that the
first. third and fourth sections might
be acceptable, but the rest ought to
be left to the legislature and not incor-
porated in the organic law of the state.
The first, third and fourth sections are
these;
|, Section /. The water of all natural
streams, springs, lakes and collections
of still water, within the boundaries Of
the state, are hereby declared to be
the property of the state.
Section 8. Priority OF appropriation
for beneficial uses shall give the bet
ter right. No appropriation shall be
denied except when such denial is
demanded by public interests. The
right of eminent domain shall extend
to land and water rights.
Section 4. The legislature shall by
law divide the state into three ca
water divisions and provide for the ap-
pointment OF superintendents thereof.
An evening contemporary takes up
the matter IN this wise:
The first section is conf1scation, pure
and simple, and as such would, Il
placed in the Constitution, be resisted
by the people. who have vital interest
in vested water rights as they now
arpaDnOI1c ma t7Jrn Of this
clause is not in any way relieved by
the application of section three. y
As for the fourth section, it is wholly
! inapplicable to Utah, as no three divi-
sions which could be arbitrarily made
would fit the situation existing here.
The errors in this assault on the
proposition for the consideration of
the convention are paIpable to per-
sons who have made themselves famil-
| lar with the laws that govern water
rights in this country.
in the declaration of the sovereignty
Of the state over the sources Of water
existing or prospective right. For II
has been long recognized by the courts
and the legislatures of the country that
individual or corporate proprietorshir
in water consists only in the right te
its reasonable use. Priority Of that
use establishes the right. Title tc
water is not like title to land. The
( latter is absolute, the former is usu-
I fruetuary.
The law of Congress recognizes this
difference. It provides:
THAT whenever by priority of pos
session, rights to the use Of water fol
mining, agricultural. manufacturing
or other purposes. have vested and &C
crued, and the same are recognized
and acknowledged by the local Gus
TOMS laws and decisions Of courts, tht
possessors and owners Of such vestet
rights shall be maintained and pro
teeted in the same, etc.
4 The Utah statute on water rights /,
based on the same principle 1t says
IA right to the use of water for any
useful purpose, such as for domestic
purposes, irrisating lands, propellins
machinery, washing and gluicing ores
and other like purposes. is hereby rec
ognized and acknowledged to hav'
vested and accrued, as a primary right
to the extent of and reasonable neces
sity for such use thereof" etc.
4 The same distinction as to the righ
to the use Of water instead of absolute
ownership will be found IN the laws 0
the different states and in the decision
Of their courts, and Of the suprem
Court Of the United States. It ma,
be argued that 1t Is a distinction with