The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1911-05-18
JEROME C. LOCKE SHOWS WHERE
WATER LAWS OF MONTANA
NEED REFORM
ENOUGH MONEY WASTED IN LITIGATION, OVER WATER
RIGHTS, TO RECLAIM OVER ONE MILLION ACRES
OF LAND

Where the water laws Of Montana
need reform is the subject treated by
Jerome G. Locke, a civil engineering
graduate of the Montana State Col
lege, in his contributions to the first
number Of the engineering journal.
Mr.. Locke is practical civil engi-
neer who was selected by the federal
census authorities to prepare the
statistics OIL irrigation for North Da-
kota and Montana, and with the as
sistance Of eight or ten subordinates
is just completing this work. His
Knowledge of the facts about irrira-
tion III Montana is surpassed by few
men and his opinions about the law
are worth careful consideration. In
part he writes as follows: do you
realize that there are over 100000
acres of irrigated lands in Montana
and that there had been wasted in
litigation, over water rights enough
money to reclaim half as much more?
That the money thus thrown away
would build railroad from Glen
dive to Helena? That it would buy
all Of the irrigation land in the Gal
latin valley? That it is more than
the taxable property of any one of
ten counties in the state?
Summed up briefly, the defects in
our Montana law are as follows:
There may be dual systems of law,
each based on different doctrine and
having no two points in common.
The law based on the doctrine Of
riparian rights is only adequate III
cases where the water is not to be di-
verted from the streams. The law
of appropriation and priority is all
right in theory, but. as it stands on
the statute books in Montana today,
it too, is inadequate, because it does
not provide any suitable system of
records, whereby the general public
or anyone who is interested in water
rights, may find out how much water
is appropriated from the streams,
neither can they find out who are the
owners of the use of the water. OF
course, in the case of adjudicated
streams, except III some instances
that have stated, where the court
records are in such shape that it is
impossible to get at the real truth of
the matter, it is impossible to find
out the amount of water that is de-
creed. If the suit that established
the decree is seven or eight years
old, the decree rights will have
changed hands and been split up so
many times through deeds with land
that you can hardly determine to
whom they do belong. Another
thing, after the decree has been hand
ed down, owners will make more fill
1ngs of flood waters or claim the
same by having applied them to ben
eticial use and there is absolutely no
way to get at the proof of the own.
ership. But the great weakness in our
law of appropriation and priority is,
as before set forth, that there is no
one to say when the owner has ap-
piled the water to a beneficial use,
nor how much he has so applied.
Granting now, that our present
law is inadequate and that it results
in useless and costless litigation.
Can it be remedied? 1t can. Arizo-
ma, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada,
and Utah have formulated such laws
SO that practically all litigation is
eliminated. Water rights when es-
tablished are recorded the same as
decided land.
There is 10 good reason why Mon
tana should not follow in the foot
steps of some of her more progress
i've sister states. Let me outline the
kind of law we should have, In the
first place, the State, in conn ection
with the Water Resource Branch of |
the U. s. Government, should estab-
lish gaugings of all the streams and
determine the available supply in
each. This work is now being car
ried on in very limited way by the
Water Resource Branch of the Gov
aided by scanty appropria-
tions made from time to time by the
Legislature. Both the State and
Government appropriations for tins