, 1905-01-10
TUESDAY. JANUARY 10, 1904.
OUR WATER RIGHTS.

OF water rights IL causing no end OF
discussion throughout the state. The
board Of control has universally held
that water was a~ppurtenant to the land
and could not be Transferred from one
piece Of land to another. This holding
OF the board OF control has been entire
fy revolutionized by the supreme court,
which holds that the right to use water
may be transferred. By some this de,
cision Is viewed with alarm, but the
lawyers almost universally hold that
it is just the proper thing; that prop
erty in water ought to be OF value for
transfer the same Is property in land,
and that the administration of the en.
gineer's once should accommodate it.
self to the demands Of the people who
OWL the right to use the water.
In discussing the matter, the Chey.
enne Leader says:
Regardless Of the fact that the state
irrigation law, q it stands. requires
the description Of lands in every step
from the preparation Of the applica-
ton to the ANAL certificate Of appro-
priation, the higest judicial tribunal
Of the commonwealth has found that
the statutes do not specify that water
10 inssparabls from the tract 1t serves
and for which the right Is granted.
While it l. remarkable that SUCH a SER
ious defect In the law has not been
discovered in nearly fifteen years. par
ticularly when . vital principle is con
cerned. yet this II not the concern OF
the people Of the state today. We
must find and apply . remedy.
The principle has been in effect for
fifteen years because the board Of CON
troll and particularly Its first presi-
dent Elwood Mead. who framed the
irrigation laws Of the state. gave
the statutes this Interpretation. The
law has been introduced into many
other states and also into the Dominion
of Canada and South Africa where the
doctrine in question is generally recog,
nixed and its vxfue and necessity are
admitted.
I'VE can only refer to a few Of the
evils that may ensue unless legisla-
tive action al be had in this matter.
THE right to transfer water without
limit means that the doors are open
for extensive speculation. A man may
sell his horse, his house, his lands or
any similar property and not injure
his neighbor. He cannot sell his water
or his water right separate from his
lands and fail to injure his neighbor
in % cases In 100. Under the recent
decision the only remedy the injured
party may have is 10 resort to the
courts and prove that he has been in.
iured. Any n familiar with the
practical side Of irrigation knows that
the chances are that injury will be
done and that 1t is q difficult matter
to establish this in the court; although
the fact can be established without the
shadow of doubt. It Is not just to
compel the irrigator to defend his
right to use water as often as a rams
fer threatens his welfare. The aver
re farmer OF Wyoming would be
bankrupter in . short time should
several injurious transfers occur with
In . short period.
'.Under tho desert land act a man
might prove up on an entire township
by transferring his water right from
one tract to another as rapidly as title
Ia secured from the general govern
ment.
The state has Thousands Of acres OF
school and other lands which have
been improved by irrigation. Under
the practice Of the board of contro
the water applied belongs to those
lands. Under the recent decision the
lessee can and will transfer the water
right to Other lands just prior to the
expiration Of his lease. This Is man
ifestlv an injustice to the state and
the people ~ . whole.
the supreme u has already
held. under . ferner decision, that
priority Of .asessertatton should be
recognised regardless Of state lines.
rnder the ufeeent decision an invita-
ton has besn extended to ~neighbor-
ing states to buy the water which has
hthsc4o been, coaaidered to be attach
ed n tho iasds served in Wyoming.
The Administrative omcers Of the
state have bSsa - coaAdent thai this
principle wuaA always be recognized
IN wyoming 0knk many certificates Of