The Carbon County news., 1931-07-23
Water
A Communication

Inc 1olloWlng article attempl'
to frame the questions that are
in the minds of all the people un-
der Rock Greek irrigation projects
No attempts or intention is made
to criticize the court. We realize
that he labors under a very hare
task. However, new irrigation
laws or understandings are needed
and we merely wish to bring the
matter before the public.
Paul L Anderson,
Boyd, Montana
I'm gonna fix her this even
ing, be ready to get her."
Bet your life, I'll be there, tel
the others
Think we can get away with
it,"
"Why not? Everybody's doing
it,
No. this isn't the conversation
of a couple of gunmen planning
the dumping off" of some under
world queen. 1t is merely the
talk of Montana farmers who are
not allowed to use irrigation water
because they haven't "early rigts.
A queer situation fraught with
tense human interest has develop
ed here on the so-called "adjudi-
Gated" creeks in Montana. This
condition is due, of course, to the
extremely dry year.
To those uninitiated into irriga-
tion lore this condition must be
all greek. 1t is ike this. In
the early days when there was
plenty of water flowing in the
mountain streams to irrigate cas-
ily all the land desiring it, all that
one had to do was to build bitches
and irrigate his land. A few years
later when water became some
what scarcer the district court de-
creed this water. That is, if a
man could get his neighbors to
testify that he used the water in
1890 he was given what is known
as an 1890 right. One who did
mt use the water until 1895 was
given an 1896 right.
Until 1919 no one paid much at
tention to the situation. In this
year there was very acute short-
age of water. So according to the
DEGREES the "early rights" could
use water to the limit while the
"late rights" were shut off.
We witnessed in that year the
peculiar situation of ranches hav-
ing 1890 rights being ruined with
too much water while neighbor-
ing ranch was dried out because
its right was 1895.
In that year it was generally
held that a man had to use the
water decreed to him on his own
stream. There was no court de-
cision on the point that year, but
the "old-timers' believed that
water was decreed to certain
farm and could not be leased or
sold for use on other land. No
man was even supposed to have
a surplus, because a man was en-
titled to only so much water as
he could reasonably use on his
land. While this belief caused
some hardship, yet the opinion was
fairly we'll established.
However, in the last two dry
years we have had a different sit
uation. For one thing, most of
the "old-timers" have passed on.
The younger generation is inter
ested only in getting water. They
have not grown up with irrigation
systems and consequently are not
SO thoroughly grounded in irriga-
tion tradition. Rather they are
trying to find loop holes in the
law that will permit them to OBJ
tain water by any means.
The first point that has been
raised is, Can a man lease his
surplus water? The points of law
involved are not clear. In the
first plcae, How can a man have
surplus water? The decree says,
"all parties are enjoined from di-
verting at any time more water
than is reasonably necessary to
ilrigate the lands of such party
actually requiring irrigation at the
time of diverting the same" The
point is, does the decree hold that
such diversion is valid if the land
needing irrigation belongs to a
or someone paying a fee
for the use of such water? Can
a man who has more water decreed
to him than he needs to irrigate
his land, hold such water and make
a business of leasing such water
to the highest bidder?
Then, when does a water right
expire? Can man claim that he
is using the water when he is leas-
ing it for use on land forty miles
away? If he cannot, will he lose
his right? If he loses it, to whom
does it belong, the man who is
renting the water or the stream as
a whole?
Many people are renting out
water which they have not used
for a number of years. Are these
rights valid or are they leasing
something which they do not own?