The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1904-03-16
THE DESERT LAND
LAW RULING

I>~e~S AAsSeNS AA ASSSeAu w
proofs in desert land entries will,
probably put q damper upon
desert land law operations and
scare off many applicants under
this much discussed act who have
assumed to secure 800 acres OF
government land without resi-
dence and by making only nom
inal improvements.
The ruling il the result OF an
inquiry concerning the accept
ance by the land office OF final
proof Of an entryman III Wyom-
ing, the proof consisting OF evil
dence showing that a marked in
crease in the growth Of grass, or
grass sufficient to support stock,
had been produced on the desert
land.
1t is Il we'll known fact in the
West that the mere fencing and
resting of the semi-arid grazing
lands, with no attempt at irri-
cation, will result in agreatly in
creased yield of grass, oftentimes
u strong growth OF a foot or
eighteen inches, whereas the adj.
jacent grazed pasture may be
but three or four inches high.
The secretary now holds that
not only must irrigation be ac-
tually practiced, but that the
entryman must have an abso-
lutte right to sufficient water TO-
fully irrigate his land.
That the system OF bitches to
conduct the water to and dis
tribute it over the land must be
adequate for this purpose, and
that the land must be actually
irrigated for a sufficient period
of time to demonstrate the suffi-
cheney OF the water supply and
effectiveness Of the system are
essential facts hich must in all
cases be proven.
Actual tillage must, as a rule,
be shown. If. however, it be
shown, and it must be made to
conclusively SO appear, that be-
cause of climatic conditions crops
other than grass cannot be sue
cessfully produced, or that ac-
tual tillage Of the soil will des-
troy and injure it's productive
qualities, the actual production
of a crop Of hay OF merchantable
value as the result of actual irri-
CATION may be accepted.
Proofs which show that be
cause of irrigation there is on
the land "a marked increase in
the growth OF grass" or that
'sgrass sufficient to support stock
has been produced on the land, ;"
will not be accepted.
The trouble lies in the proofs.
These are made before the local
land officials, and no personal
inspection of any land officers
are required, thus placing a pre-
MUM on perjury.
This ruling however could be
strictly administered, would di-
rectly effect applicants for pat
ents to land under a number OF
large irrigation bitches in sever
al OF the western states. Under
it the mere presentation OF a
water right secured by purchase
from the company will not be
considered sufficient proof. 1t
must be accompanied by conclus-
i've evidence that the capacity of
the ditch and the water supplies
are sufficient to irrigate the land;
that the ditch company has act
ually supplied the water requir-
ed and that the land has been
actually cultivated.
1t has frequently been the prac-
tice in Colorado, California. Ari-
iona and probably most, if not
all the western states and teri
I tories for large canal companies
to sell water rights far in excess
OF the water supply or the carry
ing capacity of the ditch, and
this decision, by rendering such
water rights Of no value as
proofs, may serve to protect
innocent purchasers who contem-
plate making homes on desert