Arizona republican., 1903-04-26
Tie Lien Question and the Priority
 Right Ranchers.

where in today's Republican, in which explains that there must be equal pro
 lection for all the shareholders in the ciation, should be read by every
 rancher who feels that too much is the same security that all other ra1cners give. The letter is written
 by one of the holders Of what is known as prior" water rights-the rights which give to the lands first settled the benefit of a greater water supply than is given to the lands which were brought under irrigation marked attention of all priority right ranchers
 suggests, if the whole proposition Of water storage is q fake, the sooner it is abandoned the better But if it IS trre that the construction of the pre- posed dam in the Box Canyon of the Salt river would impound in ordinary years a volume Of water sufficient, with the normal flow of the river. to irrisate plenteously all the lands under the canals, it is Of no consequence Whatever whether in law and theory E2ncher Smith has a prior right over I.ancher Jones-both of them will get all the water they need, both of them will be prosperous and happy, and both of them will make more money each year than any two farmers else where On the planet.
 But all of us know that there may De years at long intervals when even with the stu2endous Tonto reservoir there will be 9, shortage of irrigation water, because of prolonged drought and Q shortage of water in the reservoir as compared With ordinary years IL is in these years of scarcity that the priority right" rancher will be "in it.'' His vested rights are specifically re- served and protected. not only by the articles Of incorporation of the Water Users association, but by the, Hans brough-Newlands law itself. under which the government must construct the reservoir if it is constructed at all. It is not conceivable that the priority right rancher, even in the leanest years will fail to find c full supply Of water in his ditches, for he will have not only the 50 or 75 per cent of a full supply which he now has, but in addi- tion thereto will have his pro rata share of the stored water. But in these
 lean years,-say once in a decade the ranchers under the Arizona CT the Highland may have to get along for a season with Q limited supply of water.
 Suppose, then, in such case, some of the ranchers who are short Of water should say to the association: The fellows under the old canals are in clover this year, and we guess we'll let them pay all expenses of maintenance until things are coming our way again" Has not every community it's share of men who would say this, and shirk under such circumstances if permitted to shirk by the law and their obligations? And in that case. where would the priority right rancher be? It is true that he would be getting the big end of the prosper- ity. but his proportioEata share of ex- penses for maintenance would be in- creased in the exact ratio that the less fortunate ranchers under the newer canals became delinquent-should de- Iinquency be made possible by a slip shod organization.
 Nothing coulG more strongly appeal to reason and common sense than the proposition that the proposed liens on the ranches to secure the payment of maintenance expenses are liens for. the direct and almost exclusive benefit of the priority right" rancher. If temp tation to become delinquent bcsets any rancher it will be the man who finds his supply of water cut short because he lives under the Arizona canal while his neighbor under the Salt River Val ley canal, or the Tempe canal has