Rocky Ford enterprise., 1904-10-28
Question Of Profitable Use.

With the rapid development Of the
Irrigation interests Of the West. the
steadily Increasing value Of water
tights. and the advance of practical
knowledge In irrigation problems. new
elements enter into the theory. the
practice and the jurisprudence OF iTri-
cation.
The primitive condition In arid
America. in which every man WIS fee
to take the wafer from the stream a.
best suited his own needs and eon,eh-
ience. rapidly passed away. and tue
people OF the West congratulated them
selves on settling the irrigation prob
lens when they had adopted the prin-
eipie OF priority appropriation and had
given II the authority Of constitutional
and statutory enactment
Hut II is already evident that We
have not yet reached the end Of irri.a-
tion development. and the problem is
much more complicated one than VIC
had at firat supposed.
The suit OF the state OF Kansas
against the state Of Colorado has al
ready taught us that the question In not
one that can be settled by legislation
Of single state. Various ditch pro-
jects inyoiyin. the transfer OF wafer
from one valley to another have given
rise to animated discussion. A very
serious topic II opened up by the a.ita-
iion 10 prevent the trnnffcr of water
rights originating In ChafIec 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
u vas, amount Of debate and possibly
litigation.
The difference Of status between
rights acquired previous To the adop-
tion OF the state constitution. and those
established since that adoption. has
given rise to much confusion and con-
iradlc,ion. and while II seems clearly
the purpose OF the contitution to limit
water rights strictly to the bcncnecht
use or a reasonable amount of water
for q particular piece Of land. our Leg
islatuIe by statute and the courts by
decision have authorized the loanins.
the transfer and the outright sale of
water rights without close distinction
ms to the pogt-or ante-constitutionai
date OF original appropriation.
In all Of these problems. whether
they affect individual water users,
counties OF single state. residents OF
different water sheds. or communities
separated by state lines. there In 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 80 Tar In
ditches or in natural channels that n
% Il. a. lS al al
seepage or by evaporation. and only
small fraction OF the original amount
remains available for growing crops.
It Is contrary TO the public good that
the state or Nation should intervene to
compel the use OF water at high alti-
tudes where nothing more profitnblc
than hay or light yielding grains can
he grown. when the same water might
be used to produce fruits or garden
products or heavy crops at q lower al
titnde.
And 1t is contrary to the public good
that water should be restricted to any
particular use, when a possibility of
much more profitable use IL In exist
cnce.
II 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 to
prevent the transfer.
The problem Is not. however, sim
pie one. Certainly no community Will
view with Indifference any move that
threatens tn dpDriye II of the means OF
existence, and throughout the arid re-
gion Il is true beyond doubt that Wa
ter Is Life.-Pueblo Chieftain.