Arizona republican., 1907-09-05


 CT might see fit. In practice, at least so far ss the management of these varied forms of associations were con- cerned. the rule of the acquisition and use of water for irrigation, as laid down in the irrigation act. was ig- nored.
 COMPLICATIONS.
 The inevitable result can be imaxin- ed. The moment that the demand for water exceeded the supply. disputes arose. That moment arrived very soon after the first settlement of the valley, and continued down even to the pres ent time. Litigation of course ensued The farmers early realized that the tendency of corporate management that is. the management of corpora tions whose business it was to divert. carry and deliver water for hire-was to encroach upon their supply in favor of other and newer claimants. The farmer soon found himself almost help jess to contend with the corporation. While conditions wete fairly tolerable fin those years when there was an ample supply of water in the river. it was in tolerable during those years in which it was deficient. There were series of years during which the water supply seemed fairly equal to the demand Of the earlier appropriators, and there were years when it was wholly made quate to the demand. In the years of greatest plenty new claimants came and were encouraged by the corpora tions whose revenues. and hence prof its, depended upon the number of their customers. New customers could not be supplied unless by deprivation of the older ones. At the time of the passage of the irrigation act. the conditions in the Salt River valley were desperate The ignoring of the legal rights by cor porate greed and want of intelligent consideration of the situation. had brought about a state of affairs such that all further development. and all hope of it. had been abandoned. The farmer planted with only a chance. in no wise dependent upon his effort, of a harvest. Orchards and vineyards died for want of water and were cut away and used for fire wood.
 We were fortunate. however. in one respect: as result of long and vex- atious litigation. a rule governing the acquisition of the right to use water and its enjoyment. was gradually evolv- ed by our courts. It was a tedious process. often retarded and baked by weak and incompetent judges. but fin ally fairly definite. That rule may be stated to be. that the right of appro- priation of water for irrigation must be based upon the ownership or occu- pancy of land. and the measure and limit of the right is beneficial use; and that these rights vest in the order of the time in which they were initiated. the earlier having precedence over the later. Our courts have probably not in terms held that the right is appur- tenant to the lands. as that question has not been directly before them The log ical conclusion. however. from what they have held. is that the right of appropriation is appurtenant to the land for which the appropriation was made. For if the right to appropriate Msiter must be based upon the owner ship or occupancy of land. 1t is hard 10 conceive how the basis may be re- moved and the right that depends upon 1t be left.
 CONFLICT OF RIGHTS.
 There had naturally grown up in the valley among rival claimants to the use of water. none of whom were re- ceiving an adequate amount of water. bitterness of feeling. distrust. jealousy and dntogonism. The time had come when the rules that had been gradually formulated by our courts must be spe- officially applied tn the solution of the situation. Two alternatives were pres ented-bOth appalling in contemplation. one meant disaster to a large fnmber of land owners: the other meant the ana the severely logical one. was to adjudge the water to the earlier claim ants, to the exclusion of the later ones. until the wants of the first were sup piled: he other was to permit the water (wholly insufficient for alp to be dis tributed to all the claimants. with no hope. of good to any. The old regime had demonstrated its destructivenesS of all hope of progress. development and prosperity to any in the valley. A new one based upon the rules relating to the appropriation and use of water enunciated. as we have noted. could not make the situation worse and did promise to some extent to make it better.
 This was the situation when the act of 1902 was passed. Al once the farm CTS of the valley began to prepare to avdIl themselves of the benefit of that act.
 Their experience had brought them to fear and distrust. justly or unjustly. any corporation or corporate organi- zation. and, as well. to hesitate to enter into any new engagements whatever relating to their rights to appropriate water. It had become to be believed by thern that any new enterprise involv- in. q change in the water distribution systems meant Q 'hS nes To their diSSc- vantss-: Thst u was q distinct aa- -ros. slnI-nt in inSidious f"rm uDoa these rights.
 IL Was sOon made oii.in that. aedeT the conditions prevalent in the valley. any attempt .0 secure the benefits of the irrigation act by individual action would be futile: that the conditions were such that it required the com mon action of practically all of the varied interests in the valley 10 bring about that adjustment that would war rant or justify the government in un- dertaking the construction of irrisa- tion works in the valley.
 There then began a systematic and persistent effort to work out plan to