The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1912-04-19
WATER RIGHTS IN OREGON
BY John Lewis Engineer Irrigation

more cOmDlne, eacl using lHe TOTAL
allotment for part of the time, we
nave what is called irrigation by |
citation. This practice is necessary
where the water of each flowing |
is not sufficient to han
lie economically.
Priority.
Four important qualifications to |
the doctrine of beneficial use are
essential in the complete definition
Of a right The first of these is
priority. This is founded upon the
familiar maxim that he who is prior
in time is prior in right. AS water
in the stream becomes scarce, the
ditch Of the last appropriation will
be closed to protect those having
prior rights. AS the water falls
other headgates will be closed by
the water master, and these will be
opened again in case of rise in
the river.
The present owner may have re-
Gently come into possession of the
right after many transfers from the
original appropriation, but he must
establish the date when water was
first diverted for his land, or when
legal steps were first taken by the
original owner to establish the right
The water right for single ditch
may have several dates of priority
in case of subsequent engagements
The priority is expressed by a
date. In some states an attempt was
made to keep track of priorities by
number, but this led to confusion
as each number would be changed
and the right becomes correspond
ingly more valuable in case of the
abandonment of any single right tt
is highly important that the priority
be definitely established before all
of the witnesses to these important
matters have passed away.
Purpose.
Rights have been initiated in the
past for some particular purpose,
and the priority must be established
for that purpose. If a right was
acquired for mining and irrigation
but no water used for irrigation for
a number of years, the right for such
use should be denied. change in
use from power or mining which
does not consume the water to that
of irrigation which consumes a large
part of the supply, would materially
affect conditions on the stream. A
valuable orchard below the result of
many years labor, may be ruined
from the effects of such change.
Nothing could be gained by destroy
ing we'll developed farm, to en-
courage the cultivation of new
farm by a subsequent appropriation.
Such changes are clearly against
public policy, and should not be per
mitted Because water user has
enjoyed free grant from the public
for many years, is no reason why he
should be given preferred right to
Inappropriate such water for a new
use, and perhaps to the injury of
others. The user has no property
rights in the water itself, but only
a right for particular use.
Period.
The period of use is likewise an
element A right acquired
for summer irrigation would not give
the owner right at some later
time to convey water through his
ditch for storage during the winter
months. This new use would take
a subsequent date of priority. A
right for mining during the winter
after continued use could not be ex-
tended to include summer use as of
the original priority. In theory
right acquired for the irrigation of
grain which natures early in the
season, and long used for such pur-
pose, cannot be enlarged to include
water for alfalfa, which requires a
greater amount, and at different
time than for the original use Such
use may defeat, or serious
ly impair other rights, to the extent
of the enlargement.
Place.
The maximum limit of the use, and
the place of use are the important
elements so far as the public is con-
cerned. All water used in the state
for any and all uses, should be made
appurtenant to the place of use.
Otherwise there can be no stability
to water titles, and the public rec
ords in the central office will be of
but little value. At present only
water used for irrigation is made
appurtenant to the place of use.
NO transfers of water from one
place of use to another without loss
of priority should be permitted eX-
cept in the most extreme cases and
then only after proper proceedings
and record before the Board of Con-
troll. In all uses more or less water
returns to the stream, for the ben
eft of lower appropriations. Where
the use is transferred great distances
along the stream or to a point just
outside the water shed, it is clear
that damage will result to intervening
ditch rights. The same damage may
result from even relatively small
displacement as the laws of under
ground water cannot be ascertained
with accuracy. Therefore any change
in the place of use will in some de-
gree affect lower rights. AS one of
the prime objects of the law is to
insure stability of water titles and
prevent ruinous litigation, it should
be apparent why this law should dis
courage transfers of water, as of the
original date of priority.
The fundamental record in the CEN
trail office consists of township
plat, record, upon which is shown
the land that is irrigated, or the
place of use designated. AS new
rights are acquired, they are also
shown upon these plats. The indis-
criminate transfer of water woul,.
defeat this system of records.