Arizona republican., 1917-06-17
WATER RIGHTS
 NEWLY DEFINED

For great many years the courts of Arizona and neighboring states, ill their incorporation or the law relating to water appropriations, have declared that property rights in water for ir- rlgation purposes are not of the same character as ownership of land that the public the state, owns the water flowing in streams and that the state merely suffers irrigators to use the Water-and to use the water only so long as they use it beneficially. The water is said to be appurtenant to the land. Land ownership is fundament- al requirement. If the land is sold the right to water for that land goes with the land, regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the deed. Water not used beneficially can be taken up and used by new appropriations Also, neg feet to use the water for period of years or in some cases for a few months can be considered as aoan- donment and forfeits the rights previ- ously held. These principles are so manifestly just and fair and so well calculated to make the highest pos sible use of water supplies that they ..-,o- been adopted widely by courts and have been enacted into statutes by many state legislatures.
 In the adjudication of the water rights of Maricopa county the court s;tiu: "But as application to bene- ficial use upon the land is necessary to complete the appropriation, 1t fol- lows that such an appropriator must be an owner of land or have pos sessory right thereto. Furthermore, Slice ldnu to when the water IS to be applied is necessary integral part of the appropriation. and factor 'hY which the amount of water appro- priated for use IS measul eu, It Io..o,.s that when the water is no longer ap- piled to the land for which it was di verted the right of appropriation of such water for such land ceases" The statutes of Arizona limit the appro- prlation of water to those who own or possess era ole and irrigable land.
 It follows, of course, that canal companies uo not and cannot have any right or title to divert water but that they are merely carriers and th"t the right to the use of water is vested in the owner of the land for which the title to water mas been secul v>. ~J compliance with the law including putting the water to beneficial use.
 While the principles enumerated are recognized in the Salt river and Yuma NdHtN5, IICfC are OtIiti COullllCS HI Aiit state where the people still contin'n O 10 buy and sell water rights and to hold water rights separatc ana apa. . from any land SO-calied water rights are even accepted at a few banks as security for loans. These placLces aIe prepoSterouS and should be discontin- ued throughout other parts of the state as they have been in the Salt River valley. There is only one law in Arizona, and it is applicable to every county. The so-called water rights do not and cannot convey any rights to the use of water: if such water right is attached to a new parcel of land it amounts to a new appropria : ton, for the water right does not carry with it any priority whatever. If, however, such a water right car ries with it part ownership in ditch or canal. then 1t should be attached to some land at the earliest possible moment. as otherwise since the hold CT has no right to take water from a stream. his rights in the ditch or canal are valuelss also. But in no case should banks, companies or in dividuals carry these floating water rights as assests or accept them as collateral
 G. E. SMITH,
 Irrigation Engineer. Agricultural Experiment station, Uni of Arizona.