The western farmer's water right

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Contribution from the Bureau of Public Roads
THOS. H. MACDONALD, Chief

~ Washingion, D.C. PROFESSIONAL PAPER September 21, 1920

THE WESTERN FARMER’S WATER RIGHT.

By R. P. Trees, Irrigation Economist.

CONTENTS.
Page Page
Wihatran water Mehta =. 2 aes 1 | Rights to underground waters_______ 8
General characteristics of water rights_ 2 Rights: to water from \canals2== 22am 9
ACGUITEMICNt Of TIightses =e. tes oF SDistribution Of-water === — == nese 13
Evidences of title to rights to water
ECOMESTRCAM Ges eae oe ee 4

WHAT A WATER RIGHT IS.

In the western »art of the United States the rainfall is insufficient
to supply the moisture needs of growing crops, and it 1s necessary to
make up the deficiency by irrigation. The water used for irrigation
comes principally from streams, but in part from other sources.
There is not sufficient weed? “these sources to supply all the de-
mands, and consequently some land is suppled with water while
other land must go without. In order that arid land shall be cul-
tivated, the farmers of that land must have assurance that they may
continue to use water in the future, for without such assurance no
one would engage in agriculture in arid regions on account of its
uncertainty. Under these conditions there has grown up in the West
a system of laws and customs controlling the use of water, under
which a farmer secures a “ water right,” which assures, in greater

or less degree, his future water supply. Without such a right arid
land has very little value, while with a right such land has higher
value than much of the land in the humid parts of the country.

It is probable that there is no more complicated subject in the
whole field of property rights than water rights, yet the practical
working of the system is comparatively simple and easily under-
stood. It is believed that a general understanding of the subject is
within the reach of all and will be of great value to every farmer in

185335°—20

2 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

the arid section of the United States and to any who may contem-
plate taking up farming in that region. The object of this bulletin
is to give suchia general knowledge of water rights. The bulletin
does not discuss fundamental principles and theories, but rather
describes those features of water rights with which every person who
farms or intends to farm where irrigation is practiced should be
familiar.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER RIGHTS.

Though the irrigation laws of the Western States differ in many
respects, they agree in several particulars:

The use of streams and other surface water supplies for irrigation
and like purposes is subject to contro] by the States.

Water may be taken from streams and other sources for irrigation
and other beneficial uses, but only in accordance with State laws.
This is known as the right of “ appropriation.”

Actual use of the water is a necessary step in the holding of a
right and when the use ceases the right is abandoned or forfeited.
That is, no one can acquire a right to water and hold it without
actually using the water, either immediately or within a reasonable
time thereafter. This is known as the doctrine of “ beneficial use.”

Among users from the same source, the “first in time is the first
in right.” When there is not enough water for all, the rights are
supplied, to the extent of the supply available, in the order of the
dates on which they were acquired. This is known as the doctrine
of “priority.” Exceptions to this rule exist in a few of the States
where, in cases of unusual scarcity, the available water is appor-
tioned among the users either by the State officers or by the courts.

The date of a right is fixed by the time of taking the first step
to acquire it, rather than by the time of putting the water to use.
This is known as the doctrine of “ relation,” as the rights relate back
to date of beginning. (See p. —.)

Some of the Western States recognize also riparian rights. A
riparian right is a right to use water from a stream which flows
through or borders the land to which the right belongs, arising from
the fact that the land borders the stream, not from appropriation
or use and “use does not create or disuse destroy” the right. Where
riparian rights are recognized, each owner of riparian land has a
right to make any reasonable use of the water which will not in-
terfere with a like reasonable use of it by all the others. Hence, the
value of a right depends very largely on other rights to the same
source.

Even in those States where riparian rights are recognized (Cali-
fornia, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas, and Washington), appropriation

THE WESTERN FARMER’S. WATER RIGHT, 3

rights are recognized also, and most of the irrigating is done under
appropriation rights. Consequently, the subject of riparian rights
will not be discussed further.

ACQUIREMENT OF RIGHTS.

In each of the arid or semiarid States, except Kansas and Montana,
the acquirement of rights to water direct from surface sources is
under the control of State officials, and one wishing to get such a
right must follow the procedure prescribed by law. The procedure
is much the same in all the States and consists in (1) making apph-
cation to some State official or board on forms supplied by the State,
-giving full information as to plans for irrigation works and use of
water; (2) carrying out of the plans as approved by the State; (3)
submitting proof of completion of works and use of water; and (4)
granting of certificate or license by the State, defining the right as
to quantity of water, use to be made of water, and time during which
it may be used.

The official or board to which application should be made in each
of the States is shown herewith:

Arizona—State water commissioner, Phoenix.
California—State water commission, San Francisco.
Colorado—State engineer, Denver.

Idaho—State commissioner of reclamation, Boise.
Nebraska—State engineer, Lincoln.
Nevada—State engineer, Carson City.

New Mexico—State engineer, Santa Fe.

North Dakota—State engineer, Bismarck.
Oklahoma—State engineer, Oklahoma City.
Oregon—State engineer, Salem.

South Dakota—State engineer, Pierre.
Texas—State board of water cnet, Austin.
Utah—State engineer, Salt Lake City.
Washington—State hydraulic engineer, Olympia.
Wyoming—State engineer, Cheyenne.

In Kansas and Montana it is required that one wishing to acquire
‘a water right shall post at the point of diversion, and record with
the county clerk, a notice showing the intention to take water, the
amount to be taken, and the use to be made of it. The proposed
work must begin within a reasonable time and must be prosecuted
diligently to completion, and the water must be put to a “ beneficial
use.” In Montana, if a court has defined previously existing rights
to water from a source from which one proposes to take water, apph-
cation for a right to divert the water must be presented to the court
which defined the existing rights. In each of the two States the law

4 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

specifies what must be shown in the notice posted, and anyone pro-
posing to obtain a right direct from a stream or other surface source
should consult the law of the State in which the land to be irrigated
is located. In the States given above, application to the State
engineer, or the board named, will bring blanks and full instruc-
tions. The point to be kept in mind is that title to water is fully as
important as title to land, and it should receive the same careful
attention. However, very few will have occasion to acquire rights
direct from streams, and the subject need not be discussed. at length.

Although few farmers will have occasion to acquire rights direct
from streams, many will acquire them by purchasing land served
by such rights, and rights to water from canals relate back to the
rights from the streams or other sources from which the water is
taken, and one can judge of the value of rights from canals only by
examining their rights to water from the original source. A right
to water from a canal can be no better than the right under which
the canal gets its supply.

EVIDENCES OF TITLE TO RIGHTS TO WATER FROM STREAMS.1

Rights to water direct from streams are represented by the fol-
lowing evidences of title: Filings in the county records; filings in
State engineers’ offices; certificates from courts, State engineers or
boards; and permits from State engineers or boards. The force of
these evidences of title as guarantees of the value of the rights rep-
resented is discussed in the following paragraphs:

The posting and filing of a notice regarding a proposed diversion
of water merely gives notice of intention to take the additional steps
necessary to the acquirement of a right, and its only effect is to
fix the date of the right at the date of filing, rather than at the date
of begianing construction. The filing itself gives no right to water,
but it must be followed by the construction of works and the use of
water. Construction may or may not have followed the filing of a
notice, so that, taken by itself, such a filing is of little value as evi-
dence that the party making the filing has a right to the water
claimed. No one should purchase a right based on such filing with-
out additional evidence that the right is valid and that there is suf-
ficient water in the source from which water is claimed to supply
not only the right in question but all prior rights. |

In Colorado, a person wishing to divert water from a stream
must file a map and plans with the State engineer, and if the map
and plans are in proper form and set forth clearly what is claimed,
they must be approved by the engineer and a copy showing this

1 The following discussion is taken principally from Irrigation in the United States, by
R. P. Teele. New. York, 1915.

THE WESTERN FARMER’S WATER RIGHT. os

approval returned to the claimant. These filings, like those in
county offices, are merely notices of intention to divert and use water,
and the approval of the engineer conveys only the authorization to
proceed with the other steps necessary to the acquirement of a right.
Thus the approval of the engineer is no proof of the existence of a
right. As is the case with filings in the counties, the rights repre-
sented by plans approved by the State engineer in Colorado may be
good, but the approved plans alone are not conclusive evidence of
that fact.

In many of the arid States rights to water are defined by the
courts, and when rights have been defined certificates are issued to
the holders thereof, stating the volume of water to which each is
entitled, the dates of the rights, and the numbers of the rights in
the order of their priority. These certificates are proof that the
persons holding them had, at the time the adjudications were made,
rights to the volumes of water set forth in the certificates. They
do not, however, show that there is water in the stream to supply
these rights. As previously explained, these rights are to be sup-
plied in the order of their dates, and if the stream does not supply
water enough for all rights those of late date receive no water. A
certificate showing that a court has confirmed a right to a certain
amount of water from a given stream is no evidence that the holder
can get the given amount of water. The value of the right depends
upon the relation between the volume of rights of earlier date and
the flow of the stream. A further element of uncertainty is added
by the fact that rights are forfeited by nonuse, the period of non-
use which brings about such forfeiture being fixed by law in most
of the States. A right certified to by a court and good at the time
may have been lost by abandonment or forfeiture, although the cer-
tificate is still in the hands of the former holder of the right.

In other arid States rights to water direct from streams are repre-
sented by certificates from the State, setting forth the dates, extent, and
locations of the rights. Such a certificate is conclusive evidence that
the holder had a right to the volume of water named in it for use
on the land specified, but like a certificate from the court, it does
not carry any guarantee that there is or will be water in the source
named to supply the right for any considerable part of the season
or that the right has not been lost by nonuse. There may be enough
prior rights to water from the same source to use all the water
in ordinary stages of the supply. As with rights represented by
certificates from a court, rights represented by a certificate may be
lost by abandonment or may be forfeited, without the surrender of
the certificate.

6 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Permits from State engineers to appropriate water have dif-
ferent effects in the various States. An approved application con-
stitutes a permit to take water from the source named in the ap-
plication if any is available. In several States the engineer has
authority to refuse to approve an application if there is no un-
appropriated water in the source of supply, or if the approval is
contrary to the pablic interests. In Idaho, on the other hand, the
engineer is required to approve any application that isin proper form.
An approved application to appropriate water in one of the first
group of States referred to would be some indication, although not
a guarantee, that in the opinion of the engineer there was unappro-
priated water in the source named in the application.

However, some State engineers take the position that the ap-
plicant is presumed to have examined the water supply and makes
his investments at his own risk; that, furthermore, neither the en-
gineer nor the applicant can predict with any assurance how much
water a given stream will supply in any season, and that for these
reasons he is justified in approving applications to some extent in
excess of the apparent supply if the applicant wishes to take a
chance on getting water. Against this practice there is one serious
objection—it robs such permits of all value as evidence of the value
of the rights represented. Enterprises based on permits to appro-
priate water which, in all probability, does not exist, are launched,
and stock, bonds, lands, or water rights, or all four, are sold to in-
dividuals who assume that a permit from a State official to take a
certain volume of water from a certain source is a guarantee that
water is there to be taken. In this way the holder of the permit
transfers the risk, which he fully understands, to parties who do
not understand it.

The purchaser of irrigated land should understand that a permit
to appropriate water is not a guarantee on the part of the State
issuing it that the quantity of water named in the permit is available.
Even if water is available, a permit, in itself, does not constitute a
right to the use of water. Building works and taking and using water
are necessary to the holding of the right. The permit itself fixes the
time within which the works must be begun and completed and the
time within which the water must be put to use, and a failure to com-
ply with any of the conditions is fatal to the holding of the right.

The States which require applications for permits to appropriate
water provide for issuing certificates that the works described in
permits have been built and the water put to use. These certificates
or licenses are in the same class as court decrees as evidence of rights.
Rights represented by certificates or licenses can be lost by abandon-
ment or nonuse just as any other right, but are not so likely to have

THE WESTERN FARMER’S. WATER RIGHT. q

been, since the laws providing for them are comparatively recent and
the time for them to have been abandoned is short.

Certificates or licenses representing rights acquired in accord-
ance with permits issued by States and as the results of adjudica-
tions made by State boards or officials and based on surveys made
and testimony collected by State officials are the best documentary
evidence of the possession of rights which are likely to be supphed
by streams in average years, since they are based on proof submitted
to a State board or official whose duty it is to protect the public and
are usually issued after inspection by those officials; court decrees
and certificates rank next; while permits from State boards or offi-
cials and copies of filings in county or State offices rank last.

The preceding discussion may create the impression that there are
no good titles to the use of water, but that is not the case. The
point is that documentary evidence alone is not sufficient to establish
either the existence of a water right or its value. Documentary evi-
dence must be backed by evidence of the existence of a water supply
in excess of the demands of prior rights. This involves the study
of records of stream flow and of existing use. If a stream supplied
continuously a given quantity of water, and each holder of a right -
continuously used all the water to which he is entitled, the determi-
nation of the value of a right would be the simple matter of adding
the amounts of all the prior rights and comparing the sum with the
total supply of water. But neither the total supply nor the demand
made on that supply is uniform. The flow of any stream varies
from hour to hour, from day to day, and from season to season, while
the demand made by any one user may vary in the same way, so that
the probability of receiving water under any right when there is not
enough water for all rights is extremely hard to determine. On the
same stream there will be early rights whose holders can get water
whenever they need it, rights whose holders usually get water as
they need it, and other rights whose holders get water only in flood
season—with all degrees between these extremes.

In States having water commissioners, these officials keep records
of the dates when each ditch received water and how much it
received. These records, covering a series of years, will disclose
what ditches have good rights and whether there is water in any
source beyond the demands of existing rights. Where such records
do not exist, it is usually possible to learn from local disinterested
persons what ditches receive a good supply, what ditches ordinarily
are short of water, and whether, in ordinary seasons, there is more
water than is demanded by existing rights. A prospective pur-
chaser of a water right should look carefully into both the docu-

8 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

mentary and the physical evidence of the value of the right to be
purchased, giving, perhaps, more attention to the latter than to the
former. |

4

RIGHTS TO UNDERGROUND WATERS.

Though most farmers who settle on irrigated land obtain rights
through organizations of some kind rather than direct from streams,
there is large opportunity for individuals to obtain independent sup-
plies of water from underground sources through wells.

With relation to the nature of rights to their use, underground
waters are divided into four classes: (1) Underground streams
flowing in known and defined channels; (2) underground streams
flowing in unknown and undefined channels; (3) artesian waters; and
(4) percolating waters. While these classes are distinct in law, it is
not always easy to tell to which class a particular supply belongs.
In fact, water which has long been considered in one class may be
found to be in another class, and thus subject to a different law.

Subterranean streams flowing in known and defined channels are
subject to the same laws as surface streams—that is, in most States,

_ to appropriation rights—and one may not take water from such

a stream by means of wells or other means if it interferes with the
rights of prior appropriators. Ownership of the land on which a
well is located does not give any right if the water is, in fact, a part
ot the stream. }

But if a well draws water from an underground stream whose
channel is unknown and undefined, the ownership of land carries
with it the right to take the water. It is clear that the channel of
such a stream may become known as a result of investigation, in
which case the stream will become subject to the law of appropria-
tion, and the prior users may stop the use by later appropriators.

Artesian water—that which is under pressure within the ground,
so that it will rise in the well to or toward the ground surface—is
held to belong to all the land overlying the artesian basin, and each
owner of such land is permitted to make any reasonable use of the
water which will not interfere with a like use by all the other land-
owners. In this respect rights to artesian waters are similar to
riparian rights on streams—they are not fixed and definite, but
depend upon the total supply and the total demand by all owners
of land overlying an artesian basin. Since the water is the common
property of many owners, it is subject to public control, and most
of the States have more or less legislation on the subject.

Percolating water—that is, water moving through the soil, but not
under pressure and not confined to a known and defined channel—

2 This discussion is based on Kinney’s ‘ Law of Irrigation and Water Rights,” second
edition, San Francisco, 1912.

THE WESTERN FARMER’S WATER RIGHT. 9

belongs to the overlying land, and the owner of the land may with-
draw all he can get for use on his land.

As stated before, in many instances it is difficult to tell in which
class the water found under any tract of land falls, but under the
law all underground water is presumed to be percolating water until
it is proved otherwise. Artesian water is easily recognized, because
it rises above the level at which it is found when a well is drilled. In
narrow stream valleys there is a strong presumption that the under- _
ground water is a part of a stream and that pumping from a well
may be considered an appropriation from the stream. But on the
plains, and in the intermountain valleys which contain no streams,
there is a strong presumption that water which does not rise above
the stratum in which it is found is percolating water and belongs
to the landowner.

RIGHTS TO WATER FROM CANALS, ETC.

As has been stated, most farmers get water rights from canal
companies or other organizations controlling enterprises which sup-
ply water to farmers. In the preceding pages the rights of these
enterprises to water from streams or other sources have been dis-
cussed. In the following paragraphs the nature of rights conveyed
by such enterprises to the farmers to whom they supply water is
discussed. |

Rights to water from canals differ from rights to water direct from
streams in one very important particular—usually priority does not
hold among users from the same canal. Their rights are all on the
same basis, without reference to the dates when they were acquired.
Each farmer is entitled to his share of the supply belonging to the
canal. The companies are supposed not to dispose of water in excess
of their capacity to supply it, but the relation of the total rights
disposed of and the total water supply should be investigated with
the same care as the water supply generally. The character of rights
to water from canals and the conditions limiting them are fixed by
the contracts, by-laws, and regulations of the organizations con-
trolling the canals, and these are discussed below.

The principal agencies supplying water to farmers are coopera-
tive or mutual stock companies, irrigation districts, the United
States Reclamation Service, Carey Act companies, and commercial
companies.

COOPERATIVE OR MUTUAL COMPANIES.

Cooperative or mutual stock companies serve by far the larger
part of the acreage irrigated by enterprises supplying water to
farmers—62 per cent of this area in 1910, according to the census

-

10 BULLETIN 913, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

reports. Water mghts in such companies are represented by stock

in the companies, and éach share of stock entitles its holder to a share |

of the total supply of water belonging to the company rather than
to any fixed quantity. Water is not delivered in proportion to the
acreage but in proportion to the stock owned, although there is a
tendency for stock to be held in proportion to acreage. The cost of
operation and maintenance is raised by assessments on stock, and the
laws of many of the States provide that companies may sell the stock
of parties who fail to pay assessments levied on their stock. Usually
the stock may be rented, and the lessee may draw the water repre-
sented by the stock. In this respect, a right represented by stock
in a mutual company differs materially from rights in other com-
panies or districts. In the latter enterprises the water may be used
only on particular tracts of land and if it is not used on those tracts
the owners are not permitted to draw it or dispose of it in any way.

The plans of enterprises of all the other classes mentioned, except
urigation districts, contemplate that eventually they will become
joint stock companies of the type-just described, or irrigation dis-
tricts. This change is discussed in connection with the discussion
of the other types of enterprises.

= IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.

In irrigation districts a right to water is an incident to ownership
of land within the boundaries of a district and goes with the land.
Each acre of land in a district is entitled to its share of the water
supply of the district, whatever that supply may be. Here the quan-
tity of water which will be received depends entirely upon the re-
lation between the quantity available and the acreage of land in the
district. ‘Thus an examination of the water right of the district itself
is the only means of forming an idea of the value of the right.
Every district has a nominal water supply of a certain quantity for
each acre in the district, but, as pointed out, this may be only nomi-
nal. The actual supply may be much less.

in districts there is no purchase of a water right, as such, but
merely the purchase of land. Districts issue bonds to obtain Sk
for securing a water supply, and taxes are levied to raise funds to
pay the bonds and interest and the cost of operation and mainte-
nance. These taxes, if unpaid, become a lien on the land, and the
amount of bonds which must be paid off by each acre of land is in
effect the price of a water right for that acre, although it may
not be called that. At present (1920) there is a very strong tendency
to reorganize enterprises of other types, particularly United States
reclamation projects, into districts.

THE WESTERN FARMER’S WATER RIGHT. 11
UNITED STATES RECLAMATION PROJECTS.

To obtain a right to water in a United States reclamation project
it is necessary to acquire land within the limits of the project and
make application to the Reclamation Service for water. For each
project the Secretary of the Interior fixes the size of farm unit (the
acreage for which one person may obtain water), the price of rights
per acre, the quantity of water to be delivered per acre, and the
annual charges for water. These items vary for the different pro}-
ects, but full information regarding any of them can be obtained
from the United States Reclamation Service, Washington, D. C.
Though the Secretary of the Interior fixes for each project the quan-
tity of water which is to be delivered to each acre of land, the water
user on these projects, as under the others, is, in fact, entitled to his
share of whatever water is available for the project, rather than a
fixed quantity.

Originally the United States reclamation projects consisted largely
of public lands, and entrymen on these lands took them subject
to the water-right charges, and title to the land is not received until
the charges are paid. Owners of private lands within these projects
are required to apply for water and agree to make their land subject
to the water-right charges. There is little public land in these pro-
jects open to entry, so that the purchase of private land or relinquish-
ments from entrymen on public land subject to the: water-right
charges is about the only way to acquire rights under such projects.
Before making such a purchase, one should find out from the local
office of the United ‘States Reclamation Service the exact status of the
land in question with reference to payments made and to be made
for water rights. Prices of land or relinquishments will be a matter
of agreement between the parties.

Water-right charges are to be paid in 20 years, with no interest
on deferred payments.

In 1917 and 1919 many of the States in which the United States
Reclamation Service is operating amended their irrigation district
laws to provide that districts may contract with the United States
for a water supply. It is expected that under ‘these laws the land
in reclamation projects will be organized into irrigation districts,
when the water-right charges will assume the form of a tax lien, as
in other districts. If this is done, the acquirement of land within a
district will carry with it a right to water.

CAREY ACT PROJECTS.

The so-called “Carey Act” (act-of Aug. 18, 1894) grants public
lands to the States containing arid lands on condition that the
States provide for their irrigation and settlement. The States enter

i a eee eee

12 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

into contract with construction companies which build the works
and sell water rights to settlers, while the States sell the lands. The
States sell land only to purchasers of water rights and the com-
panies sell rights only to purchasers of land.

Water rights are usually sold on deferred payments, and the
notes given for deferred payments are made liens on the settlers’ —
interest in the lands and each agrees to give a saatepS on the land
itself as soon as he gets title.

The contracts usually provide for the delivery of a fixed quantity
of water per acre per year, or for the continuous delivery of a stream
of a given size for a given acreage, but they provide also that in
case of shortage the supply available shall be divided among all
users in proportion to the acreage. Here, as in the other types of
enterprises discussed, the relation of the water supply of the com-
pany to the total acreage in the enterprise is the important considera-
tion, and not the quantity of water named in the contracts.

Most Carey Act contracts provide that the projects shall be turned
over to stock companies of the type described, when a certain pro-
portion of the rights are sold. Purchasers of rights receive shares
of stock in the new companies, so that when the rights are paid for
the works belong to the water users.

COMMERCIAL COMPANIES. xe,

Commercial companies have all sorts of plans for disposing of
water rights, but their contracts have a general similarity. The
laws of many of the States prohibit the sale of rights which merely
allow the purchaser to get water upon the additional payment of
annual charges. In consequence, almost every plan provides that
the purchaser of a water right shall secure an interest in the works
and rights belonging to the company. Usually the plan is the same
as that followed in Carey Act enterprises—the exchange of the
water-right contract for stock in the company when a certain pro-
portion of all the rights in the company is sold. These contracts,
like the others, fix the quantity of water to be delivered, the land
on which the water is to be used, and the charges which are to be
paid annually until the works are turned over to the contract. holders.
Here, again, water is to be prorated in times of scarcity.

Tt is seen, therefore, that under practically every type of enter-
prise, no matter what the nominal quantity of water to be delivered
may be, the actual quantity-is a share in the available supply, based,
in most instances, on the acreage owned, but in mutual companies
on the number of shares of stock owned.

In 1919 Montana enacted a law creating an irrigation commission,
and providing that any parties wishing to sell water or water

THE WESTERN FARMER’S WATER RIGHT. 3

rights or to contract to supply water, shall apply to the commis-
sion for a permit. If the commission, after investigation, finds
that it is likely that there will not be sufficient water, or that the
proposed contracts or terms of sale are not fair, it is to refuse permits.
Persons thinking of buying irrigated land in Montana should apply
to this commission, at Helena, for information as to the water rights
and water supply of the parties offering land for sale.

DISTRIBUTION OF WATER.

DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FROM STREAMS.

Water from streams is distributed to canals in accordance with
their rights by public officials, usually called water commissioners.
Each commisioner has charge of the water within a certain district.
He has a list of the rights showing amounts, dates, and locations, and
distributes the water accordingly. In most States commissioners
control diversions only when called upon by water users. When
there is water enough for all each takes it as he pleases. In the more
highly developed communities commissioners are on duty most of
the time. Interference with the work of a water commissioner, by*
changing gates set by him, is a misdemeanor in most States.

DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FROM CANALS.

The method of distributing water adopted under any canal system
has much to do with the value of its rights to farmers, as it has a
large influence on the economy with which they can use not only
their water supply but also their time. In many instances the regu-
lations under which water is distributed have more practical effect
than the terms of contracts under which rights are acquired. Three
systems of distributing water from canals are in common use: In
continuous flow; in rotation; and on demand.

Contracts or agreements under which rights are purchased usually
provide either for the delivery of a stream of a given size continu-
ously throughout the irrigating season or for the delivery of a cer-
tain quantity or depth of water on the land per season; and in many
instances where contracts call for continuous delivery, water is, in
fact, delivered in rotation. In only a few instances is water delivered
on demand.

Delivery in continuous flow is the oldest system, but is giving
place to rotation. The size of the stream delivered depends on the
acreage, a common ratio being 1 cubic foot per second for 80 acres.
Under this system the farmer with a few acres gets a very small
stream, while the one with a large acreage gets a large stream. This
system. has several serious disadvantages. Small streams can not be

e

14 BULLETIN 913, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

used economicaliy. On lght soils a small stream can not be dis-
tributed evenly over the fields, and, whatever the type of soil, irri-
gating with a small stream takes much more time than should be
used for that purpose. When a farmer has a large enough acreage
to give him a stream of 2 or more cubic feet per second he can use
a continuous flow to better advantage, since it is a large enough
stream to work with, and he can ae the water among his own
fields.

Under rotation systems the various farmers under a canal receive
water in turn, and in this way each gets a larger stream than if he
received a continuous stream, and he can use the water to good ad-
vantage and get through with it, leaving him more time for other
work. The quantity of water received is regulated by the length of
time a stream is used by each farmer, rather than by the size of the
stream. This system has the disadvantage that the farmer can not
always get water just when he thinks he needs it, but usually rota-
tion schedules are arranged to fit, as nearly as possible, the needs
of the crops grown, and the advantages of having large streams and
doing the watering quickly more than offset ay dicadsomete of
waiting for turns. |

~The deat system is to get water on demand. In such cases a ~
water supply is like a bank account. The farmer has a credit of his
season’s supply and can draw as he needs it. This system can be
adopted only where storage facilities are available for holding the
water until it is called for.

Usually the farmer will have no choice as to which system he
will work under, except that he may choose where he will settle,
and keep this point in mind in making his choice. If a farmer is
acquiring land under an established irrigation system, local inquiry
as to results under the system will be the best means of determining
the satisfactory character of a distributing system, as well as the
value of the water supply.

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1920

~o

ae

ai edpeme!

.