The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1908-08-14
STATE CONTROL OF WATER.
Paper Presented at Recent Meeting
of Oregon State Grange.
By John H. Lewis. State Engineer.

thousands of acres of the most valuable
coal lands, it is no wonder that we
hesitate to challenge the statement that
the water resources of Oregon are to-
day its most valuable asset. Yet our
legislators have persistently refused to
enact laws governing the use and distri-
button of this valuable commodity.
Far-sighted corporations are rapidly ac-
quiring perpetual franchises to the use
of water for power development, with
out present or possible future compen-
sation to the public, from whom the
privilege is acquired.
Through the lack Of reliable record
of vested rights to the use of water,
the public has no means of ascertain
ing the location and amount of unap-
propriated water which is available for
new uses Large quantities of water
are being held without use through
actual or threatened litigation, and the
intending investor or settler moves on
to more progressive states, where water
rights can be secured by application to
the state officers, and when granted are
protected, the same as other property
rights. The holder of these question,
able vested rights joins with the power
interests in opposing the enactment OF
any law providing for public control
and making beneficial use the basis of
lights to the use Of water.
How Water Is Appropriated.
Any person can acquire water
right by simply posting notice at the
proposed point Of diversion, stating the
amount Of water claimed, the intended
use, and recording a copy of the notice
at the county court house. If the water
Is to be used for irrigation purposes, a
certified copy Of the notice must be
filed with the state engineer within 30
days thereafter. 1t makes no differ
ence If the waters of the stream are
already fully utilized at points below.
The notice can specify any amount,
even though such amount exceed the
regular flow Of the stream. 1t may be
impossible to use the water benefcially
for the purpose as claimed, but that
makes no difference so long as construc.
tion is commenced within six months.
Your title is then complete, but the
record is not completed by the fling Of
proof that work has commenced. By
refling every six months, water right
can be held without the performance Of
any work until some legitimate investor
trys to secure control of the same water
right. Then work must be commenced
and prosecuted with due diligence. I'm
der this law one Of our leading attor-
with shovel, employed at the intake,
can hold water right indefinitely.
Thus the legitimate investor must first
buy off the notice man, who has con-
tributed nothing to the public welfare.
Even the payment of this blackmail
does not give him clear title to the
necessary water, for the apparent sup
ply may, perhaps, all be fully utilized
in the adjoining counties below, through
which the stream runs.
In the absence of state control, the
only way for this investor to even
guess at the amount Of unappropriated
water is to first measure the stream,
and then travel down the same, meas
uring the maximum capacity Of each
ditch, to ascertain how much Of this
water has already been appropriated.
If the stream is hundred or more
miles In length, this task alone would
discourage the most enthusiastic in
vsster or settler. Then the records of
water filings, under our present laws,
must also be examined TO ascertain how
many rights have been initiated which
may ultimately become vested and
prove prior in time to his right. No
tices claiming water, posted In thick
cts along the banks Of a stream, can
not be found and are, therefore, Of no
value to him. The county records are
of but little, If any more value, as the
recorded claims to water invariably ex-
ceed many times the regular flow Of
the stream. For example, the records
Of Baker county show claims to the
waters Of Powder river for irrigation
purposes amounting to over eighty
times the flood flow Of this stream at
Baker City during 1905, and the 1,145
recorded claims for all purposes
amounted to over one hundred and
eighty times this flood flow. These
claims, therefore, cannot all be vested
rights, and 1t Is impossible to ascertain
from the record which, if any, are valid
or ultimately may become vested. Be
sides, many bitches have been built
and water diverted without any public
record whatever. In a separate record
will be found court DEGREES affecting
titles to the water Of this same stream
These DEGREES may divide the water
among a minority Of claimants, without
any consideration whatever of the
rights Of the public in the unappro-
priated waters. The county record thus
serves only to cloud title to unappro-
priated water and discourage invest
ments.
The stream under consideration by
the investor may flow through or bor-
der on two or more counties where wa
ter titles are equally as complicated as
described for Baker county. To alb.
stract the water records Of the
Desehutes river would require jour
ney Of practically 1000 miles, and the
examination Of the worthless records
Of five counties.
Under the 1908 act, all filings for
irrigation purposes were to be recorded
in the state engineers Office at Salem
but no penalty was provided to en-
force this provision. Out Of 1873 filings
in Baker county under this act, only
1 = Fr4r