The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-12-27
oVER-USE OF IRRIGATION.

The unanimous testimony of all
practical meu who are farming or
scientific foundations, applied espe
cially TO this arid region. is that too
much water is used IN irrigation. Seine
good crops eau be raised without irri-
CATION. through diligcnt culture and
the faithful application of correct prin-
ciplcs, 1t then would seem that a little
water. fraction of the amount here
soforc considered necessary. should be
ample to raise good crops every year
Another thing in this Same connec,
tion everyone knows to be true; that
| is, that irrigators habitually overflow
their lands; the water runs off on to
lands that are below. and upon the
streets and roads, damaging the road
ways, and often absolutely running
good, fertile farms that have to re-
ceive this overflow water A good
many tracts of land in this valley that
were valuable farms years ago arc now
abandoned, because they have been
drowned out and the soil killed with
alkali washed down from lands above
them. Some of the most bitter law.
suits that have ever been fought out
in our courts have been because of
such overflow and damage to land
The newer irrigation farming under
takes TO provide against this, and to
limit the water that any one may take
for irrigation purposes to that which
can be beneficialIy used upon the land
which he cultivates. We believe that
here is the true measure for the appli-
cation of water to lands by way of
irrigation and appropriation, No one
should be allowed to take more water
than he can beneficiallY use on his
land. is the new doctrine. The time
has come when waste of irrigation
water is IA sin against the community
al large For an irrigator TO hold fast
TO his right to use more water than.
he can beneficially apply, is wrong
to The community in that it prevents
the reclamation of more land and there
by a rigbtful addition to the wealth
of tho community.
La all this, VIC would by no means
be understood as wishing to deprive
auyone of his just claims. or of his
primary water rights. Those rights
should be retained IN full force and
vigor TO the utmost extent of benefi-
cial use. But why should anyone wish
TO retain the right TO use and actually
to use, water which not only is of no
benefit to him. but which may become,
and usually does become. not only a.
waste. but a menace and damage TO
himself and his neighbors.
Heretofore, the litigation upon wa
ter-rights here has been on basis
quite different from the utility idea.
1t has been based in all cases. so far
as we have noticed, upon quantity Of
water claimed and available in the
stream of supply. In some years there
would be so much water that even those
who we're disposed to be profuse in
its use would have moro than they
cared TO nut on their land. In other
years of scarcity, there would be
trouble about the distribution Of the
water among those who were entitled
TO IT, And the courts, when the dis
puteS came before them, have univer.
sally adjusted the dispute on the basis
of quantity of water In the stream,
apportioning the whole stream to those
who could show their right of use, the
primary water right being the founda
tion for the judgments rendered.
Jt would he quite different propo-
sition if the court judgments were
based on the right of beneficial use,
rather than of absolute quantity, .espe-
cIally If this beneficial use we're
brought down to the standard of mod
ern ccientific requirements as to the
quantity Of water necessary to raise
crops every year. IL is understood
that the dry farms have to lie fallow
every other year in order to produce
good crops: but surely fractional
part Of the quantity of water usually
applied to the land would make il
available every year. And with this
new and better application Of water,
limiting it to the real needs of the