OCR Text |
Show 260 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN UTAH. shall pass to the grantee of any parcel of land on which such right was exercised next preceding the time of the execution of any conveyance thereof; subject, however, in all cases, to payment by the grantee of any such conveyance of all amounts unpaid on any assessment then due upon any such right: Provided, That any such right to the use of water, or any part thereof, may be reserved by the grantor in any such conveyance, or may be treated as personal property, and separately conveyed. It is this provision of the law that must, in a measure, be held to account for the incomplete records of water transfers in the basin of Virgin River. So long as water can be transferred apart from land, and the recording of water transfers is not made compulsory, so long will the records of transfer remain uncertain and incomplete. It is, of course, natural that written transfers should not always be made and recorded when the titles are as uncertain as on the Virgin River; but titles will some day be made certain, and when they are, it will be a wise step to provide for a complete and orderly record of transfers. While it is conceded that irrigation water should, as a general rule, be appurtenant to and inseparable from the land on which it is used, there is a question whether there ought not to be some exceptions*to this rule in some of the upper settlements. In Virgin City, Graf ton, and Rockville considerable land that was at one time farmed under a water right equal with that of the land, now farmed has been washed away by floods, leaving its owners no other alternative than taking up new land. For some of the land that washed away water certificates had been issued by the county selectmen sitting as water commissioners. Although these certificates do aot carry title, they are evidence of use at the time they were issued. The question therefore arises, Have the early appropriators whose land has washed away any rights superior to those of later appropriators? This question has been asked by some of the builders of the Hurricane Canal (see page 234), and it has been proposed that the rights acquired for land that has washed away shall be transferred to the land under the new canal. While such action would be a departure from the approved principle of attaching water inseparably to land, it is at least an open question whether under the circumstances, providing no undue injury were worked the other appropriators, it would not be equitable. Reasonable diligence in making the second appropriation would need to be insisted upon if the present State laws of appropriation were enforced, but this would be a question of fact easily determiaable. There seems little question that the matter should be considered when water titles are cleared up on Virgin River. ' RANGE CONDITIONS. Of the 6,000 or 7,000 square miles in the basin, the larger portion is a public range, and from the cattle and sheep that graze on this range is derived practically the only cash income of many of the farmers. In few instances are the cattle and sheep owned by others than the irrigators of the many small farms in the basin. In 1900, according to the first annual report of the Utah State board of statistics, there were in Washington County 2,864 head of cattle assessed at $46,274, and 59,544 head of sheep assessed at $148,869; and in Kane County 2,468 head of cattle assessed at $39,595, and 28,825 head of sheep assessed at $72,062. In 1902, according to the county assessors, there were in Washington County approximately 7,000 head of cattle and 15,000 head of sheep, and in Kane County approximately 3,000 head of cattle and 40,000 head of sheep. Although these figures show a light stocking of the |
Source |
Original book: Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties |