Arizona republican., 1907-09-05

iotting the shares, In the event a re- duction below the number subscribed for became necessary. The rule to give the preference to cultivated lands was adopted. and by supplemental agree ment the allotment was to be made in the order of time in which the exist ing rights became vested.
 QUESTIONS OF EQUITY.
 Whatever. therefore. may have been fixed as the nominal value of the stock. it Is in fact finally determined by the amount the subscriber is required to pay of the whole cost of the project apportioned to his lands. The national irrigation act prescribes that this ap- portionment shall be equitable: that does not necessarily imply that it shall be equally apportioned acre for acre. In many projects it might be that to ap- portion this cost equally would be in equitable. while in others equality would he equity. This depends upon local conditions. If under a given pro- ject, there We're owners of land who had by appropriation acquired the right to the use of water ample for their needs. the construction of other works by the government could afford them no direct benefit so lar, at least. as their water supply was concerned: and 1t would seem negotiable to charge any part of the cost to the government works against them. They would re- ceive no benefit and therefore should not be charged with any part of the cost. Under other projects, however, there may be many who have attempt ed to acquire a. right to appropriate water sufficient for their needs, and who are making every reasonable ef- fort to make their right effectual. yet who. by reason of either natural condi- tions or want of financial means. really have, and have had. an inadequate variable and uncertain supply. To the extent that they have actually appro- pr1ated water, probably their right is a vested one. In some seasons the amount Of water may be sufficient; in others not. It might. with reference to such q condition. be said that the own CT of such a right ought not e have charged against him, in case he wish es to avail himself of the more reli- able supply of water afforded by the irrigation project constructed under the irrigation act, as much per acre Cor other unit of extent of land) as should be charged against the lands of others who had made no appropriation at all; that equality of charge in that case would be negotiable. Theoretically this is true, but in practice 1t. in most cases. would be found to be very diff cult of adjustment. It is a pretty gen. eral rule that under every irrigation enterprise of any considerable extent. there is in practice a difference in the service Of water amongst the several users. Some, whether rightfully or wrongfuily. get more than others, and in most cases none get enough This is largely due to the attempts to ap- proWiate more water than the sources of 1t will supply. If the doctrine of priority of right by reason Of priority in time of the actual appropriation of the water prevails. there is inevitable encroachment by the later upon the right of the prior appropriators: if that doctrine does not prevail. there is. nevertheless, the constant tendency to attempt the appropriation of more wa ter than the source can supply: in either case there is an inadequatelsuppy to some, and perhaps to all. Disputes arise and the element of uncertainty of right, as well as the fact of deficit of supply, enters into the calculation. And that element is of unknown. and In most cases of unascertainable. value.
 There are many other considerations that enter into the question of the rel ative value of rights. where it may be attempted to ascertain them in order to fix an equitable instead of an equal apportionment of the cost of an irriga- ton project constructed under the act. IL is impossible here even to note them. much less discuss them. What have suggested sufficiently illustrates the difficulty of ascertaining what is the equitable. other than an eqaul propor- ticn that each of the water users un- der the project should pay.
 SALT RIVER VALLEY.
 In the Salt River project in Arizona. with which l am best acquainted. these difficulties were found to be so great. so nearly insurmountable. that the water users voluntarily agreed the owners of the oldest right with the claimant of the most recent. and they with the land owner or occupant who claimed no right at all under condi- tions prevailing when that project was the cost cf the pro ject should he apportioned equally acre for acre against the lands of those to whom water rights under the project should be allotted-and I think that they feel that. under the conditions there. that is. after all. an equitable apportionment. Conditions vary so much in each locality that no general rule can be stated beyond that in the act itself-that Is, that the apportion ment shall be equitable. Each com munity must determine for itself taking into consideration all the local condi- tons. what is equitable.
 Very often public spirit intelligent foresight. O Ju.st spprecia a ton nj the vsiu.. of mutuai concessions for the ssnsroI .o".. >uvplV O solution of the oiiiicUIties. where an attempt al mIat'l- el.lIicaIly accurate adjustment would utterly fail.
 The situation in the Salt River val ley at the inception of the government project there. seemed one of inextrica ble confusion. In that valley there are thousands of acres of rich farming land in excess of any possibility of supply of water There are claimants of rights