The Record-courier. [volume] (Gardnerville, Nev.) 1904-current, 1924-01-04

, ure or shortage of crops on his
land or knew of any other sufferers
having an 1876 right. Under such
circumstances 1t seems not un-
reasonable to assume that no acutal
shortage existed for, otherwise there
must have been many who could have
testified to 1t. The District did pro-
duce one l.. II. Taylor, an irrigation
engineer having considerable local
perience and learning, by whom
perience tand learning, by whom
1t endeayored to show an occasional
insufficiency of available water for
priorities subsequent to 1863 by
mathematics and hypothesis based up
on some data not wholly reliable and
some not certainly knowable. Con-
ceding that In his assumed data and
assumed duty OF water, a theoretical
shortage is shown for at least fiyo
years out of the fourteen years that
his data covered, 1t would seem to
follow that the benefit that any lands
having a priority between 1863 and
1877 would have received from an ad-
ditionai water supply would have
been a theoretical benefit. Theory
may be valuable to those contemplat-
Ing an irrigation project as fixing its
size. cost and probable beneficial
area, but 1t can not serve to estab-
lish a fact directly provable by
direct evidence. Hypothesis can not
prevail over history.
II is claimed that the fact that
petitioner on certain years bought
water from a reservoir company In
which 1t held stock. an incident of
the ownership of which was a
right of priority OF purchase, was
conclusive of the fact that at those
times the petitioners lands were
benefited by supply of water
unavailable under its priority. 1t
appears that the water was bought
very infrequently and was ordered in
anticipation of a possible shortage.
While the water bought was actual
ly used, the inconsiderable quantity
used dies not, in the face of petition
er's explanation, justify the conclus-
ion that damage to his crops would
have resulted from its non use. While
II is true that the priority of pur-
chase right incidental to the stock
ownership is not appurtenant to the
lands, the fact that the stock had
not been recently purchased rebuts
the inferences that might be drawn
were II otherwise. The prudent man
may insure his property against the
upnforseen or uncertain without its
being taken as an admission of the
inevitable. or course there may occur
a year of unprecedented drought. in
which event the petitioner may not
be able to obtain water even to meet
his 1858 appropriation, but in such
case 1t may well occur that the Dis
u iASt "Ohlu nave HO wafer 10 Supply
the deficiency. and II 1t did have
some stored water il Is not to be
assumed that the petitioner would
have any priority in the additional
water. This only serves to emphasize
the point that any benefit must be
reasonably certain and practically
continuous and not contingent, and
manifestly justice demands an equal
ization of benefits and burdens.
When one has a personal or pro-
perty right the State owes 1t to
him to enforce and protect that right.
That is what government is fog, and,
while the measure of his contribu-
tion to the government in the form
OF tax Is often gauged by the
trouble and expense necessary to
give adequate protection. the fact
that ones enjoyment OF a right Is
freed from certain embarrassments
is ordinarily not considered as con-
ferring upon him or his right bene-
fit justifying tax beyond the cost
of administration. The distribution
Of water to the users of the Dis
trict has been made for a number
OF years by Water Commission