, 1907-10-10

IL
not be irrigated the facts relating
thereto should be explicitly set forth
in the proof, and IL there are any en-
tire subdivisions that cannut be re-
GAINED. they must be relinanished.
Third. IL an agricultural crop can
not be raised upon the land because
of its altitude n other unusual condi-
lions. then u merchantable crop OF
hay will be accepted IL lieu thereof.
but all the facts as to why an agricnl'
tural crop cannot be raised on one
eighth of the land must be fully set
forth. An Increased growth Of grass
will not be accepted as sufficient In
any event.
Fourth. Claimant must show title
TO a permanent right to the use OF SUI.
hcient water to irrigate all the land
in his claim that Is susceptible or IT.
rigation. If this title is secured un'
aer the state law through the state en-
g~ineer's Office, then a copy of the GER
tificate of appropriation from the board
of control should be furnished; or, II
the certificate has not been issued, Ii
copy of the permit from the Office OF
the state engineer showing the land
areas covered and that the compile
ton Of the appropriation has been re,
ported TO the state engineers Office.
Care should be taken 10 have the per
nit for IA sufficient acreage to cover
all the land in the entry that can be
irrigated, for the reason that the lano
department will not accept proof show.
ing water right for a lesser acreage
than can be reclaimed.
There is a current impression that
proof of completion OF appropriation
of water must come through the Office
of the state engineer in the form of n
report submitted by IL water commits
sioner and verified by a certificate
from the state engineers Office. While
there remains the possibility that the
commissioner OF the general land office
may require this kind of a showing,
The Republican does not share in the
belief. The most recent regulation in
the matter of water rights promulgated
by the commissioner reads as follows
That the regulations governing final
proofs in desert land entries be modi'
ned to require the entryman to show
in making final proof that lie has d
right to the nse of suhlcient water 20
properly irrigate the irrigable land Ia
his entry; that he has done all that
the laws OF The state or territory re
cure MIN to do for the maintenance
OF that right, M that he has actual
.ly used the water for the irrigation OF
the land embraced in his entry"
1t is the rule of the land department
in all agricultural land cases to &C
cept the testimony of claimant and two
require record evidence. After desert
claimants have secured from the office
of the state engineer Il copy of their
permits with the notation thereon that
report of completion was filed upon a
certain date, ii would appear that all
other evidence relating to the diver
sion of the water, the dams, bitches,
irrigation, ETC., could Just as readily
be furnished by the claimant and wit
nesses as by a water commissioner
acting through the Office of the state
engineer, and 1t is believed hat such
proof would tie accepted by the land
department. In case of doubt, the in
terror department has its own agents
to whom cases may be referred for in,
vestigaticn. The only objection TO
having a report from the water COM
missioner and a certificate from the
office of the state engineer based upon
that report is the delay, expense and
inconvenience often caused by such re-
port. 1t frequently happens that the
water commissioners cannot make re.
ports at the time they are wanted and
much delay is occasioned thereby. In
taking final proofs upon desert land
entries. clerks of court and United
States commissioners should exercise
lsreat care in taking the evidence Of
claimants and witnesses in the matter
of water rights. The testimony should
be as full and complete as it is pos
sible to get ii, covering in detail all
the points mentioned IN the foregoing
requirements.