The Glenwood post., 1911-08-12
Arthur Il. Stokes, For Many Years d.
vision Irrigation Engineer, Gives
Views on Carpenter Act
ONLY AFFECTS FUTURE RIGHTS

L.
for ten years irrigation division eng.
neer and prior to his services in that
line superintendent for many years of
some of the big bitches of Mesa ana
Montrose counties, and generally rec
ognized as the best authority on ir-
rigation practice and law in western
Colorado, has written the following az
ticle to the Grand Junction News con-
cerning the Carpenter irrigation law,
commonly known as the Carpenter res.
ervoir bill, which was passed by the
last legislature and has now been re-.
ferred to the people for their approval
at the next regular election:
Karl A. Bickel, Esq, Editor the Daily
News,
Grand Junction, Colo.
Dear Sir-In response to your re-
quest, l hereby express my views Of
the Carpenter bill, and give my reasons
for having done what I could with
members of the legislature to secure
its passage.
Ny support of the bill is based On
my idea of the present law, and of the
effect of the new law. and it appears
to me that no one can intelligentiy
vote on the new measure unless he IS
perfectly decided in his own mind on
these two points. 1t is to be regretted
that the light already shed on the
present law by the supreme court is
not as brilliant as it undoubtedly will
be when case pending from northern
Colorado is decided; and it is more 20
be regretted that no light can be shed
on the Carpenter bill from that source
until it becomes a law, and is made
the issue of suit. We do not know,
however, that the legislature, in session
and out, discussed this measure more
perhaps than any other, and it woul1
seem that we should be content to ac-
cept it, rather than refer it to the
many voters whose interest in it will
be very slight, and the majority of
whom can hardly be expected to study
what law there is on the subject.
The first legal question raised is as
to the existing law, under which ditch
owner of late date can demand that
reservoir owner of earlier date stop
storing water; it being always under
stood that there must be need Of water
for beneficial purpose before anyone,
irrespective Of his priority, has any
right to take it. This law has been
attacked as being unconstitutional IN
that it overrides the principle of prior
ity. 1t is only those who, like the
writer, believe the law to be constitu-
tional, and believe, unlike the writer,
that it should remain in force, who can
have any objection to the Carpenter
bill. it being to all intent repeal Of
the existing law.
Affects Future Appropriations Only
The second legal question arises
when one, believing that the legislature
has the power to regulate the appropri-
alton of water for storage, sits down
to consider what will be the effect Of
the bill under consideration. And fur
ther, what effect will it have, firstly on
the owners of existing rights, and Sec
ondly of future appropriators' can
not believe that the passage of any act
can alter the status of evisting rights.
If at the time a man constructed his
ditch for direct irrigation the legisla-
ture by its acts had made storage ap-
propriations (which are obviously not
such appropriations as are made to sat
isfy an immediate need for beneficial
pnrpose) subordinate to his right to
take water to satisfy immediate need,
I believe that all such existing storage
rights viii remain still subject to his
right. But also believe that some at
least Of the supporters, and many Of
the opponents, Of this bill think othsr-
wise. Who is going to tell us which is
right In my opinion II II only on the
rights Of future appropriations that the