Arizona republican., 1910-09-29

Adhc udu dIuny TUT COuSlipaNoA-
 We have suggested the measure and
 limit of the right. The right may
 be lost by non -user-not upon the
 general doctrine of abandonment
 which involves an intent to perman
 ently discontinue possession or use of
 property, but because the right it.
 self depends upon it's reasonably con
 tinuous use. It is true that from a
 long period or nOn-user an abandon
 ment of the right may be legally m
 ferred, whatever the intention Of the
 appropriator may in fact be. Gov
 ernment, whether state or national,
 originally granted the right In or
 der that the water might be used TOT
 the development of the country. and
 it may be said that such use. contin-
 uously, or practically so, is condl-
 ton of the grant. Hence we prefer
 to say that the right depends upon
 reasonably continuous exercise of 1t
 rather than that the right has been
 abandoned by non-user.
 It is therefore one of the duties of one who has acquired right to take water for irrigation to use It.
 He owes this duty to the public and he owes it to the members of the community of which he is one.
 It probably would be a novel prop osition to assert that the owner of a horse may not legally allow 1t to stand idle in its stall without how ever making any use of it at all, and without permitting any one else to use it. It is common to see property unused year after year by it's owner and its use by any other than the owner denied or refused, and We are not apt to say that that situation IS not legal. We see waste of property committed every day, yet the law applicable to the rights of owner ship ordinarilly permits it. No one will say that is morally right-we have not yet probably sufficient nor al courage to condemn it by law. But if we are right in our assump- ton as to the origin of the right to use water for irrigation, non-use misuse or waste of it cannot be le- gally permitted If the law is not so it should be; it is direct logical result of the principles which we have announced governing the acqui- sition of the right to appropriate 1t.
 It follows therefore that the state may make and enforce all necessary rules to secure constant and as near ly as that is practicable, efficient use of water for irrigation.
 It is the duty of those who have the right to appropriate water to so use it that the lands for which the right has been acquired shall attain the highest degree. in quantity and quality. of productiveness. That the methods of use, including those Of delivery and distribution shall be those demonstrable by scientific ex- perience to result in the least waste and the highest efficiency of water It is his duty. as experience suggests better methods of cultivation and Irrigation. to adopt them, and the law should be so framed as to com pel this If one method of cultivation and irrigation can be shown to be more wasteful and less efficient than another the duty of the irrigator IS to adopt the latter. The standard of efficiency is of course a variable one it varies with time and locality but it is always tending to a higher level. The effort should always be to the adoption of the best methods regard, of course, must be had for local conditions. For instance, it is admitted that the delivery of water pipes results in a great say ing of water-yet it can hardly be said that the water users in a new and undevelOped community, where lands are cheap, where the products of the soil are cheap, where the market, facilities are crude and in efficient. should be compelled at once to adopt the most expensive system of water service. But it ought to be insisted that as conditions improve so too should the water user be re- quired to improve his methods of irrigation and cultivation. That this is a moral duty. I think no will deny. That it is legal duty as well. I think is deducible from the ten dency of legislation and of the ad- indication of the courts.
 To the extent that a water user wastes water. either wilfully or neg ligently. he infringes upon the right of some neighbor to the use of water and thereby inflicts injury of which the law, il it does not, should take cognizance and for which it should afford remedy.
 It is the duty of the water user to accommodate himself to improved not only in the actual ap- plication of water to his lands for ir- rigation. but in the diversion of it from it's original course. and it's con veyance thence to the place of it's use. That he may have been one of the earliest to acquire the right of