The Dolores star., 1910-02-18

men.
Published on request Of District At
tOrney Lane:
The following letter expresses the
opinion Of the Hon. Fred bennett,
Commissioner Of the General Land
ofIice, relating to the 6nal proof Of des
ert lands depending on Colorado irrigA-
tion districts for their supply Of water.
December %, 1909.
Hon. John A. Martin,
House Of Representatives.
Ihave the honor to acknowl-
edge the receipt Of your letter Of De-
cember %, 1909, enclosing letter from
Mr.. George w. Lane, Of Durango, Col
orado, concerning the effect. in connec-
tion with the requirements Of the des-
ert land acts, Of certain amendments Of
the statute Of Colorado which provides
for the organization and maintenance
of Irrigation Districts, In that state.
Briefly stated, the law In question,
as originally enacted. provided for the
maintenance by public authorities Of
systems Of irrigating works, with mon
ey raised by means Of taxation of the
lands held In freehold ownership aud
benefited by such systenis. Lands
and legal title to which remained IL
the Federal Government, not being
subject to taxation by the state, could
not be included In an Irrigation Dir
trict, under the terms of this statute,
and the law did not expressly author
ize the District authorities to enter into
contracts with entrymen of such lands
agreeing to make the lands a part Of
the District, IL legal title thereto should
be acquired, so that they would become
subject to taxation. 1t did, however,
provide that the District authOritie.
might rent water to claimants Of such
lands. A renting agreement, being q
mere temporary arrangement, could
not, under the circumstances, be ac-
cepted by this Office as a water right
such as claimants under the desert land
acts are required to possess, even
though such q claimant might have
actually irrigated the lands claimed b,
him with the water furnished by tn,
district under the renting agreement.
This was the situation Mt the date OF
the passage Of the aniendatory act t.
which you refer. (Session Laws OF
1909, Chapter 1867. That act provide,
that the Board Of Directors may no,
only rent water to settlers upon or oc
cupants Of the Public Domain, but
may also enter into contracts with
them tn the effect that they shall, upon
receiving full title to their lands, and
upon payment Of their proportional.
share Of bond assessments, include their
land In the District and shall, upon
such inclusion, be entitled to all the
rights aud privileges of q menter OF
the District. The law requires certain
formalities, as to publication Of notice,
hearing, and opportunities for protest
by interested parties, In order to render
such contract binding, and these for
malitIes appear to be essentially the
same as those attending the inclusion,
in the District of other new land.
actually owned In fee.
am Of the opinion that, under tn.
law rs it now stands, final proof unde,
the desert land acts, showing that tht
claimant had actually reclaimed hi>
| la nd NxIth N. u.ofo taI -, ~, k.,
District organized under these statutes;
that he bad actually made a contract
with the District, such as the statute.
now authorize, that no protest had
been made against such contracts with.
In the time allowed by the law, suffi.
cient to defeat the contract; and that
he had done all that he was required l.,
do by the terms of his contract with
the District, might properly be accept.
| ed by this office. Such u contract, IL
my opinion, would give the claimant !.
vested or absolute right to the use o
water which would satisfy the require.
meIit of the desert land acts In that re-
gard.
Mr.. Lanes letter is herewith return
ed to you.
Very Respectfully,
Fred bennett,
Commissioner
This letter was written to the Hon
John A. Martin, Congressman from
this District. Mr.. Martin first callec
ON the Commissioner to inquire abour
these matters and at his request wrot,
the Commissioner a statement which
was accompanied by letter from
George w. Lane which had called tn,
attention of Mr.. Martin to the impor
tance of the matters involved.
or course, it should be understood
that the above letter is only an opinion
which il not absolutely binding on th,
Department, but in view of the fac
that the opinion has been acquiescet
in by several officers high In the de