The Greeley tribune., 1911-10-26
mBR COLORADO EDITORIAL ASSOCIATION

1 dkHQA IVlVNWV QlIVlnfI n.zyvS44sSt
THE CARPENTER BILL AGAIN
And Then Some
To The Tribune:
have read with great interest
the two articles by Messers. Jacob,
and Baker concerning the CarIen'
ter bill. ] say with great Interest
because ! am personally interested
to the tune OF several thousand dol.
lars in the ultimate settlement of
the question involved. And for that
reason will you now permit lay
man to occupy your columns to per-
haps an equal extent in the eiuci-
tiatiOn OF a view entirely opposed TO
the expressed opinions Of either OF
these gentlemen OF the legal fra
ternity. l am no lawyer. but grew
up and have grown old with our ir-
Iigation system. l turned the water
down the first lateral ditch on my
farm in 1871 and may truthfully
affirm that 1 have read about irri-
cation, thought about irrigation.
written about irrigation. and prac-
ticed irrigation from that day to
this. Every dollar that possess at
this time has been derived rs q di-
rect result of the application of
water to the soil, and I may add
that I am now disp0sing rs fast as
can of every acre 1 own in farm
property for the definite and precise
reason that recent laws and court
decisions have so unsettled my
rights i'm water that I not only no
longer know where I am at, but
should not be in the least surprised
II I'm the near future another court
decision should justly deprive me
Of $1,000 worth Of water that
recently purchased after the courts
than half my original appropriation
which I had used without question
from any source for more than
twenty years.
Mr.. Jacobs says that the Carpen-
ter bill is ambiguous and that the
best lawyers of the state differ as
to its meaning and legitimate con-
Mr.. Baker disa&rces with
his brother of the profession and in
the very fact that he does disagree
with him rs to the proper constr,,c-
tiOn Of the Law proves cOnclusively
that MIR. Jacobs contention is cor
rect Lawyer Jacobs says that law
yer representative Carpenter claims
the object Of the Law was to repeal
section four OF the Law Of 1901, and
he adAds that II that was the intent
OF the Law the author should have
drawn tie bill in = straight forward
manner to effect that object. l am
myself entirely satisfied that 1t not
only does do that but much more
and for that reason I oppose the b.
as enacted into law.
Whatever else this bill was in.
tended to accomplish l think there
can be no doubt 1t was meant to do
away with any distinction between
reservoir rights and ditch rights as
to appropriation and use OF water,
and 1t is on that phase Of the ques-
tiOn that 1 have been induced to
write this letter.
There is a broad and fundamental
difference between the theory and
principle of reservoir irrigation as
opposed to ditch appropriations p.
rights that was clearly seen, recog-
nized and practiced, from the time
when the first reservoirs were con.
structed clear down to within q
comparatively recent date. help
ed construct one OF the first two
Large reservoirs. No. 2 in northern
Colorado. and my brother was q
prime mover in the other for the
IArimer and Weld, aud ! can tes.
tify from actual working knowledge
thst for years thereafter NO one
thought of claiming the right to rur
water In our reservoirs when tlsl
farmers under any ditch prior o.
soatOr needed II and required it 70,
direct irrigation. 1t has been reco8
nized from the first Of our opera
ttOns under our water DEGREES tina
whenever, for any reason. any par
OF the water in any ditch, was no,
needed and not used Tor the time
being. that water. little or mucf
mast be turned hack into the rive,
for the use of others needing it, no
for some other time in a reservoir
but for that identical time In som,
other ditch, or any ditch needing j
then and there for direct irrigation
That theory and that principle o
water distribution held for years
was the custom; and custom evolves
Law, and is finally enacted into law
just As that custom became enacted
into the law Of 1901 which express
ly fOrbids the running Of water int
reservoirs when it is needed for di
rect irrigation in bitches, no matter
what the priority Of either ditch o,
reservoir may be. Reservoirs hsl
been increasing rapidly about thu
time that Law was enacted. TIN
large schemes 80 numerous sincl
that day were inst cnuniuu int
speculative vogue, and the demand
they were even then beginning Il
mako were recognized as . futurS
danger, and because 1t WAS best tha,
tho always pevtousiy recognizet
fundamental difference between tn,
two systems sbOuld b. set It res'
~ statutory Law tho bill Of 1901
was passed.
Let me define now the fundamen
tai and all important di2erences be
tween tho two systems. Because O,
. presumed and assumed scarcity ol
water for iffiGntiOa NEXT year. a,