The Grit-advocate., 1904-10-28
THE rARh AND RANGE
Question of Profitable Use.

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-
ience. rapidly passed away, and the
people OF the West congratulated them
selves on settling the irrigation prob
lens when they had adopted the prln-
ciple Of priority appropriation and had
given it the authority OF constitutional
and statutory enactment.
But it is already evident that we
have not yet reached the end of irriga-
ton development. and the problem is
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 >Chafree 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
4 vast amount of debate and possibly
litigation.
The difference of status between
rights acquired previous to the adop-
lion 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 contitution to limit
water rights strictly to the benefcent
use or reasonable amount OF water
/ for a particular piece Of land, our Leg
stature by statute and the courts by
decision have authorized the loanlng
| the transfer and the outright sale of,
water rights without close distinction
as to the post-Or ante-constitutlonal
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 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 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 or 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 used to produce fruits or garden
products or heavy crops at 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.
VI
the most profitable use does not In
volve any contravention of existing
rights. but applies only to those cases
in which, by purchose or otherwise, ex-
isting 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
;,I,r rnt, NH IN u wi
view with Indifference any move that
threatens to deprive it of the means OF
existence, and throughout the arid re-
gon it is true beyond doubt that Wa
ter is Lfe-Pueblo Chieftain.
Crops Without Irrigation.
After more than twenty years OF
study and experiment in the scmi-arid
belt, Mr.. II. w Campbell of Lincoln
Nebraska, has developed system OF
soil culture which would seem from in
formation at hand to be particularly
well adapted to the needs of agricul
ture in the arid states.
A farmer writing from Nebraska
says that after experimenting with the
Campbell process for two years. dur
ing the past season, which was an un
favorable one for wheat. from twenty
acres of land cultivated during the
summer of 1903 and sown to winter
wheat, he harvested $50 bushels OF
wheat, testing fifty-nine pounds. or for
ty-one bushels to the acre. And this
too in the face OF the fact that ninety
per cent. Of the wheat sown in the
same neighborhood under the old sys
tenn Of cultivation was total failure
The successful test of the new system
was made on high land with less than
one-half inch of rain from August, 1903
to April. 1904.
A Kansas farmer writes: while the
wheat crop in our section was total
failure In 1904, yet on our farm. where
We cultivate entirely under Professor
Campbell's plan. We raised over forty
bushels per acre from less than one
half bushel OF seed Sown."
Another Kansas farmer writes OF