East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1906-08-22

II. p. Tcele That Is of Vast Interest
Address: office of Experiment
Station, for Bulletin No. 18S.
There has just been published by
the department of agriculture bull
letin of very especial interest to the
people of oregon just now, while
there is so much discussion of the
need of better water laws. It is enti-
tied 1.-THE State Engineer and His Re-
lation to Irrigation" and is written
by r. p. Teele, of the irrigation and
drainage Investigations. AS is stated
in the Introduction of this bulletin, at
is the purpose of this report to de-
scribe the methods used in the differ
ent states for accomplishing the three
acts-defining existing rights, super
vising the requirement of new rights,
and distributing water-and in exer-
cising whatever additional control
over irrigation sexists, in the hope
that this comparative study may bring
out the strong and weak points in the
different systems, and help towards
the adoption of the best methods in
all the states"
The author then proceeds to take
up each of the states having state
engineer, discussing not only the laws
as they stand on the books. but telling
how the various provisions have
worked in practice and where they
have fallen down. or have been
proven unconstitutional In the courts.
The powers duties and limitations of
the state engineers office and the
details of his work, filing claims, an
swering inquiries and examining
works are described. He takes up the
details, too, of distribution by state
officers, as in Colorado, the duties of
division engineers and water commits
sioners, the physical difficulties in the
way of just division of water where
half the flow Is return waste water or
seepage, the actual adjustment of
'loans" of water, and the various
forms and blanks used to keep water
records.
In oregon the law of 1905 gives the
state engineer authority to gather
all data necessary for the adjudication
of all rights involved" when the state
this authority he is now making sur
veys on Walla WaIla river. But as
is concerned, the state engineer OF
| oregon simply has authority to file
all claims as presented, regardless OF
their character. He has nothing tc
do with the distribution of water
The record of rights in oregon is ther
very little indication of the actua
amount of mappropriated water ii
any stream.
In conclusion Mr.. Teelc holds tina
no law is satisfactory that does moi
provide as a basis for distribution o
water a method of defining existing
rights and second a provision for ac
auiring new rights that will insure ;
complete list Of those rights. 9TH,
laws of the various states must b,
judged by this standards do they pro
vide for complete and accurate lis
of all rights to water?" The system
of filing claims with county official
has nOtoriously failed, he says. sine
no method was provided for showing
proof of the actual use of water oi
the proposed lands. The filing o
claims with the state engineer, as ii
Colorado and Oregon has also failed
since no provision was made for de
termining what rights had been ac
quired.
To remedy this lack most of tn
states now provide for general suit
defining the rights of all parties to
stream, but where, as in Colorado
there is no provision for expert ad
vice as to the capacity of ditche!
these suits have been notoriously in
accurate.
, The problem has been satisfactoril
met in Wyoming by their system {
decrees drawn up by an engineerin
board Of by the state engineer, as
Nebraska and Nevada, subject to tn
. review Of the courts. The efficienc
Of the Oregon system has not yet bee
tested. The institution Of suits by
, water commissioner as provided
the Idaho law of 1903, has been d,
MED in the courts. Whether sui
may be brought by the attorney ger
erals Of Utah and oregon as provide
by law I'm the interest of the state, n
mains to be tested.
In more than half the arid stat'
there is no provision for making pro-
Of the completion of works or the al
plication Of water, and where sue
proofs are lacking, the whole syste
~ filing new rights becomes wOrtl