Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1915-current, 1917-04-06
GOVERNOR FOUND MANY
REASONS FOR DlSAP-
PROVING WATER LAW
CONTINUED from page y

CONTINUED from page 81
from that procedure there are no.
torious since they grant rights to the
use OF water in bitches far in excess of
the carrying capacity OF such bitches.
The Colorado system was prescribed
In our own statutes from 1889 to 1893.
Nothing was accomplished under II
and it was repealed in the latter year.
In 1909, Oregon, with practically our
own constitutional limitations stand.
ing as bar to such a direct admin.
istrative procedure as had been adopt.
ed in Nebraska and Wyoming, put
into effect a shllfully designed and
eminently practical code calculated to
limit to the greatest extent the ne
cessity for a general appearance of
all water users in court by Offering.
in advance of the court controversy.
an informal opportunity to contest be-
Tor the state engineer. Under this
act. practical and substantial progress
was made from the first, notwithstand-
in "a protracted attack on the con-
stitutionality of the code. which after
seven years of the same type of liti-
cation which has tied up the state
engineers office in this state for the
past four years, took the question fin
ally ~ the supreme court OF the
United States where the plan was held
TO be constitutional. This decision
from the highest tribunal in the land
sustained favorable decisions in the
federal courts in Oregon, which de-
cisions not only validated the pro-
cedure but commended it for its sim
plicity and practicability.
In 1918, Nevada adopted a code pat
termed in part after the Oregon sta
tute. which code was in 1915 made to
conform substantially to the code OF
the last-named state. Within the past
month, the Nevada law has been held
to be constitutional by the United
States court for the district of Nevada
after full extended consideration and
research of the matter in the light OF
the decisions o fthe Nevada Supreme
Court in the Nevada law; although the
consututionality fthe Nevada law of
1915 is still pending and undecided
by the Nevada supreme court in
case involving similar principles.
The Nevada statute, under attack
almost from the day of its approval,
has caused no litigation as a result
of its adjudication provisions TO wa.
ter users anywhere Excepting such |
litigation as was directed to the estop- |
pei OF the operation of the act. and |
which. therefore did not come as a |
of its operation.) 1t is |
this act which assembly substitute for |
assembly bill No. 20 proposes to re-
peal.
Minor errors lin one case involv-
ing an important definltion), and in.
scruons in these portions of this act
copied from the existing statute, par.
ticularly vicious provision in section
eight which would have the effect of
injuriously modifying the operations of
the basic principle in the doctrine of
that continuous use, be. |
fore an dafter adjudication is essen. |
tial TO the retention of a water right.
make this bill additionally objection.
able.
"A general adjudication suit. |
brought by consistent opponents of |
the present lay and filed. by accident |
or design, during the period in which |
this bill remained in my hands when !
II could not but create alarm and con.
fuse the issues in the minds of the wa
ter users on one of our principal
streams cannot. in my judgment. work
any greater hardship on the people af-
.ected thereby. should the said suit in
act be allowed to proceed. then would
he operation of this bill, assurances