The Elbert County tribune. [volume] (Elbert, Elbert County, Colo.) 18??-1920, 1904-10-27

With the rapid development of the
irrigation interests of the West, the
steadily increasing value of water
rights, and the advance OF practical
knowledge in irrigation problems. new
elements enter into the theory, the
practice and the jurisprudence OF irri-
CATION.
The primitive condition in arid
America, in which every man was free
to take the water from the stream as
best suited his own needs and conven-
fence, rapidly passed away, and the
people of the West congratulated them
selves on settling the irrigation prob
lens when they had adopted the prin-
ciple of priority appropriation and had
given 1t the authority of constitutional
and statutory enactment
But 1t is already evident that we
have not yet reached the end of irriga-
ton development, and the problem is a
much more complicated one than We
had at first supposed.
The suit of the state of Kansas
against the state of Colorado has al
ready taught us that the question is not
one that can be settled by legislation
of single state. Various ditch pro-
jects involving the transfer of water
from one valley to another have given
rise to animated discussion. A very
serious topic is opened up by the agita-
ton to prevent the transfer of water
rights originating in Chaffee county to
some point further down the stream.
The suggestion that the federal govern
ment may build reservoirs in Colorado
to store water to be used for irrigation
in California or Arizona will provoke
a vast amount of debate and possibly
litigation.
The difference of status between
rights acquired previous to the adop-
ton of the state constitution, and those
established since that adoption, has
given rise to much confusion and con-
tradiction, and while it seems clearly
the purpose of the contribution to limit
water rights strictly to the benehcent
use or reasonable amount of water
for a particular piece of land, our Leg
islature by statute and the courts by
decision have authorized the loaning,
the transfer and the outright sale OF
water rights without close distinction
as to the poster ante-constitutional
date of original appropriation.
In all of these problems, whether
they affect individual water users,
counties of a single state, residents OF
different water sheds, or communities
separated by state lines, there is one
principle of growing Importance, which
is bound to compel recognition both
from the courts and from the people at
large And that is the principle of most
profitable use.
1t is, for instance, contrary to the
public good that a certain volume of
water should be carried SO far in
bitches or in natural channels that q
large part of its volume is wasted by
seepage or by evaporation, and only a
small fraction of the original amount
remains available for growing crops.
1t is contrary to the public good that
the state OF Nation should intervene to
compel the use of water at a high alti-
tudes where nothing more profitable
than hay or light yielding grains can
be grown, when the same water might
be used to produce fruits or garden
products or heavy crops at a lower al
titude.
And it is contrary to the public good
that water should be restricted to any
particular use, when a possibility OF
much more profitable use is in exist
ence.
1t should be understood; however
that this statement of the principle OF
the most profitable use does not in
volve any contravention of existing
rights, but applies only to those cases
in which, by purchase or otherwise, ex-
listing rights are abrogated to the sat
isfaction of their possessors. In such
cases the state should not interfere &c
prevent the transfer
The problem is not, however. sim
pie one. Certainly no community will
view with indifference any move thai
threatens to deprive it of the means OF
existence, and throughout the arid re-
gion 1t is true beyond doubt that Wa
ter is Life.-Pueblo Chieftain.