Arizona republican., 1910-03-02
JUDGE RENTS DECISION.
Some Comments by Judge Joseph N
 kibbey.

history of the development of the Salt 1 River valley. It is. as well. l think, the longest step taken toward q com pletc Jurisprudence in this territory relating to the appropriation and use of water from public sources of sup ply for the purposes of irrigation.
 We have been fortunate in the con sistent and progressive adjudcations by the supreme court of the territory ! tending toward the establishment of those principle applicable to the ap- propriation and use of water which Judge Kent embodies in his decision. Judge Kent has now finally formu- lated them. and there seems no req sonable doubt that they are firmly established.
 These principles. broadly stated. arc the rejection of the common law doc Urine of riparian rights. so far, at least, as they interfere with the right of use of water for irrigation: the es- tablishment of priority of right to the use of water in the order Of the time of actual appropriation, the older having preference: that the right to appropriate is based upon the owner ship or occupancy of land; that the right is appurtenant to the land; that the measure and the limit of the right is beneficial use.
 Judge Rents decision is a monu- ment to his untiring industry in the trial of that case An idea may be found of the vast amount of labor involved in the trial of the case when it is remembered that the date and the history of the appropriation of water for. and the cultivation of, Scv- eral thousand separate and distinct pieces of land had to be detailed in the evidence in the case. weighed sfted and considered before he could arrive at his conclusions. That history eX
 tended over the time from 1867 to this date. and embraced probably 250, 900 acres of land.
 A vast amount of patience was dis played by the judge in the trial of the case. Days, weeks and months were consumed in the weary task nf listening to the details of the history of the development of this valley all most acre by acre.
 As a result. we have the carefully prepared decision marvelously com plete in all it's details. The decision has been printed in pamphlet form by the direction of the Water Users as- sociation. and comprises a pamphlet of eighty large. closely printed pages. fixing the exact status of. every piece of cultivated land in the valley in relation to the right to the use of water therefor.
 There are something over 4.S00 de fendants to this action. The claims
 
 officially and definitely.
 This is in marked and pleasing con trast to the peremptory refusal of the Nevada supreme court. some years ago. who said in similar case. some what flippantly. that that court had not the time to consider individual claims to the use of water.
 The courts of Arizona have con- sistently from the earliest decision held that the ultimate right of the individual appropriator must be con sidered. In this case for the first time nevertheless, the question of the individual rights of the appropriator in the Salt River valley have been presented to the court for determind- tion And they have now been de terrnined and established by decree in this case of Hurley vs. Abbott. one of the questions that most perplexed the organizers of the Salt River Valley Water Users associa- tion, (for it was one, the solution of which had to be provided for as condition precedent to the construc- tion of the Roosevelt dam), was that of the individual rights of the water claimants Vested rights could not be disturbed by the operation of the rec lamation act. but until these rights could be determined. or their deter imitation provided for, the govern ment could not proceed at all. As condition to the undertaking by the reclamation service of the conStruc- tion of the Salt River project. the or ganiZers of the Water Users aSsocia- ton agreed to institute the necessary proceedings to procure an adjudica- tion of those rights. Hence the in stitution. by the procurement of the Water Users association. of the suit of Hurley vs. Abbott. the conclusion of which has just been reached. In 1905 the suit of Hurley vs. Ab- bolt ct al was begun. Hurley claimed to be an early appropriator of water m lflt NditN. anu pAV'6ht SN'e against about 4,s00 other claimants to quiet his right to his appropriation as against them. In the determine ton of his right to the use of water there was incidentally. yet necessarily, involved the determination of the right of every other claimant. Later the United States government acquired by purchase certain of the canals in the valley; it also had cer- tain claims to the use of water for the irrigation of lands owned by 1t and used for the Indian school; 1t was also the guardian of the interests of a number of Indians who claimed the right to the use of water. and, be- ing further interested in securing an adjudication of the rights of all water claimants to enable it to carry out it's purpose in the reclamation of land by means of the irrigation works be- gun by it. filed bill in intervention in the Hurley suit. The suit there after proceeded as that of Hurley and of the government
 In his decision, which is quite lengthy, but as concisely stated as that is possible, Judge Kent reviews the history of irrigation in the val ley. He relates that the construction
 ott VuIIe canal