The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-25

water. Does decree stating that it
is hereby adjudicated that A. B. is en-
titled to three cubic feet of water per
second time" mean all the time during
| irrigating season or only just as long
as it is absolutely necessary for the
use of water to properly irrigate a
crop? The answer is made by the
| different water commissioners in diff
ferent ways. Some consider that A.
B. is entitled to the water all the time
and others that A. B. is only entitled
! to the water by reason of his first
priority when his crops actually need
water.
| If the decree means all the time, then
most of our mountain streams VIII
support but one or two ranches where
20 now exist; but if the courts decide
| that he is only entitled to the water
| when in need of it, then the 20 can
farm and make paying crops. If the
holder of the first priority is entitled
to water all the time, there is no
reason why he cannot irrigate his
crops and then dispose of his rights to
the highest bidder for the time he is
not using the water. If, on the other
hand, the water is his only when he
actually needs it, then a variable de-
cree would be necessary; by variable
decree-we mean a decree that will
recognize the different crops he may
raise-for instance, alfalfa requires so
much water, timothy more while corn
and rye do not need so much Wheat
requires as much as alfalfa while
barley and oats can be raised with less.
| This year the holder of priority may
plant wheat on his broken ground
which with his timothy REQUIRES the
full amount of water and next year it
may be the second year of alfalfa and
timothy not requiring so much water
on bottom land.
We believe that awarding of one
cubic foot of water per second of time
for each 80 acres to all priority hold
ers is wrong; for we personally know
of land that requires twice as much
water as other land to raise crop, and
therefore think that the character of
the soil and crop should be considered
when awarding DEGREES. The old
priority law we believe was better
than the present; for while recOgniz-
ing the oldest use of the water. it de-
clared that the crop needing the first
use of water was entitled to the water
regardless of its priority. This
law of course had its objec-
tions for the youngest ranch
might ask for the water first and need
the water continuously, thus depriving
the old ranches from a water supply,
yet the present law has grave objec
lions for it virtually places the culti-
walton of lands in the hands of the few
and makes farming a monopoly to a
certain extent.
Fortunately our legislators have
tempered very little with the question
of water; if not seeming to the taste,
and the farmer has managed to exc
out living even with less water than
he needed and low prices for what he
did raise; but the question will no
longer stay down and the subject of
equitable irrigation laws will have to
be acted upon.
How to solve the problem of furnish
ing a maximum demand with a mini
mum supply must be met and the
question should be talked over and
argued by the men most interested
before the legislature meets, so that
any practicable ideas may be pre-
scented and to this end we ask our
readers to take hold of the question
and give us some ideas of their own.
We intend to say more on the subject
and request correspondence. The
Pueblo papers are giving space to the
question so are our northern farmers
in the institute meetings. so must our
people of the foothills. LA Veta Ad
yertiser.