Arizona republican., 1904-02-29
Will Cause a Falling off in
 Desert Land Entries
ACTUAL IRRIGATION
The Entryman Must Show That His Land Has Produced and He Must Have Water Right That Carries Real Water With It.

Washington, Feb. 2s.-(SpeciaD-The ruling of Secretary Hitchcock, just made, in regard to final proofs in des- ert land entries, will probably put a damper upon desert land law opera tions and scare off many applicants, under this much discussed act. who have assumed to secure S20 acres of government land without residence and by making only nominal improve ments.
 The ruling is the result of an in- quiry concerning the acceptance by the land office of final proof of an en- tryman in Wyoming, the proof con sisting of evidence showing that d marked increase in the growth of grass, or grass sufficient to support stock had been produced on the des- ert land.
 It is a well known fact in the west that the mere fencing and resting of the semi-arid grazing lands. with no attempt at irrigation, will result in a greatly incl eased yield of grass. often times a strong growth of a foot or eighteen inches, whereas the adjacent grazed pasture may be but three or four inches high.
 The secretary now holds that not only must irrigation be actually prac- ticed, but that the entryman must have an absolute right to sufficient water to fully irrigate his land. That the system of ditches to conduct the water to and distribute it over the land must be adequate for this pur- pose. and that the land must be ac- tually irrigated for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate the sufficieney . of the water supply and effectiveness of the system are essential facts which must in all cases be proven. Actual tillage must, as rule, be shown. If. . however. 1t be shown, and it must be made to conclusively so appear. that because of climatic conditions crops other than grass cannot be success ! fully produced, or that actual tillage of | the soil will destroy or injure its productive qualities, the actual pro- duction of a crop of hay of merchan- able value as the result of actual ir- iigation may be accepted. Proofs which show that because of irrigation. | there is on the land "a marked increase in the growth of grass or that grass sufficient to support stock has bsen produced on all the land" will not be accepted The trouble lies in the proofs. These are made before the local land officials and no personal in- spection of any land officers is re- quired. thus placing a premium upon perjury.
 This ruling, however. could it be strictly administered, would directly affect applicants for patents to lands | under a number of large irrigation ditches in several of the western | states. Under it the mere presenta- tion of a water right secured by pur- chase from a company will not be considered sufficient proof. It must bt accompanied by conclusive evidence that the capacity of the ditch and ths water supply are sufficient to irrigats the land. that the ditch company has actually supplied the water required and that the land has been actually | cultivated
 It has frequently been the practice in Colorado, California, Arizona anC probably most if not all of the west. ern states and territories for larg, canal companies to sell water right: far in excess of the water supply ol the carrying capacity off the ditch and this decision, by rendering sucl water rights of no value as proofs may serve to protect innocent pur chasers who contemplate taking LII homes nn desert lands In the vicinity of these canals.
 c. c. RANDOLPH.