, 1898-12-12
HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.

The first decision affecting water
rights on interstate streams is favor
able to the residents of the Big Lara
mie valley. II Judge Knowles of the
United States court Of Montana rs
right, then the Colorado people who
have taken almost half the water of
the Big Laramie river and turned it
into Chambers lake can be made to
close their headgate and the people of
the Sand creek valley are secured in
it1e.. 80 lights. Future steps in
the important matter win be watched
with keen interest.
1t is not sure that the Wyoming an,
thorities are in sympathy with the
Montana decision because Of the fact
that a large number of Interstate
streams head in this state, but the res
idents OF this valley and of Wheatland
will not be hard to convince that it is
good law. Even now a plan is under
way ITO drain Sand creek and another
big ditch from the Big Laramie Is con-
templated. Should a ditch be taken
from the Big Laramie at a point Dear
the mouth of Mcintyre creek, even the
big reservoir near McGilrs would
hardly ave the Wheatland colony from
practical annihiliation. The ranch
men OF the Laramie plains have prior
rights to the Wheatland appropriation
and win therefore probably be able
to retain their present supply of water,
but another big ditch would prevent all
hope of the future agricultural develop
ment Of the arid lands along the Big
Laramie and between the Big and Little
Little Laramie rivers. Judge Knowles
decision, If it is good law, will MOI only
prevent a future appropriation by Col
orado parties, but it will cause them to
let go the Chambers lake ditch. There
fore let us hope JuGgr Knowles is
right.
In an interview upon this important
question, State Engineer Elwood mead
says:
THE recent decision Of Judge
Knowles that the prior appropriation
in Wyoming can close the bitches OF
later appropriations on the same stream
in Montana Marks a new era in trri-
cation development in this country.
If sustained in the higher courts it will
sooner or later require the re~adjucation
of right and REMEMBERING OF priories on
all interstate streams Before a stream
can be divided bel ween states, the ma
ture and extent Of their respective
rights will have to be determined. To
do this will involve, not only a change
in the value, but a revolution in the
character Of water rights. The diff
ference in state avs and the owner
ship of streams makes it inevitable.
A single example will serve to show
why this is true.
1.-THE North Platte rises in Colorado
and Crosses Wyoming and Nebraska
Rights to its waters have ,been acquir-
ed in each stat. They are from a
common supply, but they are ais dif-
ferent in character as II acquired on
opposite sides of the globe. In Colo
RADIO the size OF a ditch governs the
extent Of the right. The water is held
as personal property by the appropria-
tor. II he don't van to use IT he can
sell the right TO someone who does.
'In Wyoming the right is restricted
to the volume actually used and to the
necessity OF that use, the ownership OF
the water being vested perpetually In
the state.
"1n Nebraska The nature Of ell rights
Is in doubt owing 10 a decision Of the
state court UNFOLDING the common law
doctrine OF riparian rlehts. Suppose the
United States are called upon TO settle