The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-01-21

e.5oraI constitution that ali powers not
L-anted expressly or by necessary inn
tcafion TO the federal government are
'p.orvad To the several states. and that
L. practically all matters of local gov
lament the states have exclusive con-
,rol Numerous recent failures, how
yer. on the part Of the states To prop
orly do their plain duty have given rise
- widespread agitation for fuller and
.Seitional federal powers This tend
cocy To make the states administrative
,rovinces Of the federal government IS
Ssyed with grave alarm by many
sratesmen, for when IL should be en-
.couraged and when fought are indeed
,rious problems. Yet while there may
~ room for argument on both SIDES Of
this question, there can be no dispute
az 10 the inpolicy and danger of fed
Ic-sl intermeddling with exclusively
.state matters. Sucn interIneddling has
,rosueutly occurred during the present
excessively aggressive natiOr8i admin
.stratiOn, but probably nowhere has il
6een so uncalled for. so ignorant or SO
lamenrable in its results as when il
,ersed q novel and experimental code
II water rights 20 he foisted uDon the
statute books Of number Of the west
err states. We sometimes palliate an
.,6epse on the Jesuitical theory that the
means employed arc justified by the
beneficial results. This is not such an
Ofense.
E4E
The massage Of the so-cailcd reClama-
ton act by congress i'm June. 1902.
aroused great interest in water condi-
tioDs In the west. The western states
we're eager e. cooperate with tie fed-
e-sl government TO make this act a
gra,d success It meant the speedy de-
y.opment Of a large part Of our latent
resources. il was a Wise measure foT
which we had striven for years. How
ever the government. in It's arrogance e,
,eeuiugly misunderstood our eagerness
and assumed it should reform practic-
ally our whole system OF acquiring. adj
Indicating and distributing water
There was no insistent demand in the
west Tor a change in these matters: our
existing laws had long been in force
were adequate and fair and their mean
ing quite fully settled bY the courts
But we were wrong. Some genius al
Washington for every idea always
springs first from e single brain. had
made the startling discovery that our
laws we're fundamentally wrong and
that He must revolutionize and repeal
practically the whole existing law and
exalt the state engineer. Diseased bv
ance Of the law was only equailed by
bis dearth of knowledge of local condi-
tlcns and customs. drafted what he
WIS pleased 10 designate as a code of
Irrigation and water rights. II was an
experiment.
Yer we must cooperate with the gov
eminent in us grand work Of WakinS
the Deserts bloom: the local state po-
ltic3l machines naturally were willing
Co create new Offices for their members
either by providing for "A state engineer
where none had existed or by onlarg-
ing the Office force OF the engineer
where one had been already appointed
ADD the state engineers We're certainly
not loath 10 exalt their Importance and
Increase their epoiumeuts Where,
however. these forces were not sufii-
cient 90 ram this code through the state
legislatures, more OF less omen threats
Wero made that a failures To- pass this
code would result in the refusal Of gov
Inmental aiG in irrigation projects.
ihe extremes to which some % these
states DrostituteG their Independence
and manhood IS shown bV the fact that
az least one state passed a statute re-
curing that the state engineer should
only be appointed on the recommends
uon of the director Of the United states
geological survey. The main provisions
ot this code were passed I'm all but a
few Of the western states. with VARYING
drastic provisions tending TO hamper
individual effort i'm acquiring rights. as
The one placing the appropria tor under
bond that ne will complete the work
specified i'm his appropriation within a
time fixed by the state engineer. The
law passed in Utah first in 1903 is a fair
lnpie Of the others. and We will con-
slider chiefly its provisions as amend
81 IN 1903 in Analysing the act.
-
We have long felt that q change III
settled laws should only be approached
With fear and trembling, and only made
sy a steady and experienced hand in
response To an insistenJ popular de-
h'and. But il seemed necessary COR the
craftsman Of the code i'm Utah 10 out
punsie the original bungling genius. tor
me- ran the whole gamut from bad
grammar through equivccal and even
meaningless expressions to unconstitu-
uonai and vicious provisions. Some OF
ue provisions Of this act are unnneces-
NoIE, being simply re-enactments Of ex-
stlng laws or legislative sanction of
lnclples already long settled by the
highest courts Of the state. Others over
tUlh our cherished conviction that there
vas q time when water rights became
Nosteu ana could not he disturbed, as
Tor instance this clause: THAT when
yer The natural flow Of any stream
ShaA have receded in volume in the
e,ihual low water stage, then the rights
~ avg users to such flow at such stage
shah DC deemed to be equal as 10 pri-
NY and the water when at or below
1ueh stage. shall be apporti0ned pro
Iaa among said users that is. sub
Sequehi appropriation has equal rights
uneven greater rights il his ditch
arger-than prior appropriation
o'iAhg low water. which Is usually the
.liy time when there * any dispute be-
l"eeh water users. We shall not pre-
une 10 forecast what the courts Of
ian VIII do With that provision If it's
isututionalitr is questioned before
u,,'h, but we have au abiding convic-
n mat the water users will not toll
ave JUS enforcement. and that M pub
-, oHicer will attempt TO enforce it
more than once.
ne act delegates authority to the
. - engineer to force litigation of the
ter rights OF any stream, TO deter
Lii now and under what conditions
e,er snail be distributed TO its owners
,t - 20 determine when. how and under
,.,. Ia conditions new rights may be ac-
tsneo. The above three features con-
s,leute the vast bulk Of the act Pat