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

page iv

by the State Engineer, his deputy and assistants during the years 1923 and 1924. DUTY OF WATER The duty of water as hereinafter set forth was determined from statements of water commission' ers, duly appointed to distribute the water on said system, from field investigations made under the direction of the State Engineer, from statements of water user's claims duly filed in this case and from the records of the duty of water established by investigation, measurments and distribution of the waters of other river systems in the State of Utah over a period of years, where conditions under which the water has been used', are similar. With these data to aid, a duty of 60 acres to one cubic foot per second was decided upon for land irrigated by the East Fork and the upper parts of the North Fork and Ash Creeks, and a duty of 55 acres for one cubic foot per second was decided upon for the remainder of the system. To make a soil survey, crop survey and contour map of the irrigated lands and to show definite differences in requirements of various water users would entail enormous expense, take many years to determine and lead only to endless argument and litigation. It is recommended that the duty of water hereinbefore set out be used as the basis for the adjudication to be made by the Court but that the Court retain jurisdiction as hereinafter recommended for the purpose of making such corrections in the duty of water as time may show just and proper. CLASS OF RIGHTS In order to simplify the distribution of water the rights have been divided into three general classes that are numbered. All lands that were determined to have been irrigated before the year 1891 are included in Class 1, and all lands first irrigated between Jan. 1, 1891 and March 12, 1903 are included in Class 2. All rights initiated by applications under the Act of March 12, 1903 and subsequent acts are included in Class 3 and take their priority within this class according to their status in the Office of the State Engineer. In some instances the various classes have been subdivided and lettered a, b, c, etc., to maintain priorities on some of the tributaries where it is impracticable to divide the water on a pro rata basis. Section 34, Chapter 100, Session Laws of Utah, 1903, reads as follows: "Rights to the use of any of the unappropriated water in the State may be acquired by appropriation, in the manner hereinafter provided, and not otherwise*****." Acts amendatory to said Chapter 100 contain the same provisions. Because of this provision of the law, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, all persons who have used water since 1903 without first making application therefor as provided by the statute are determined to have no right, title or interest in or to the use of water of the Virgin River System by reason of such use. ROTATION OF RIGHTS In cases where the quantities of water determined to various individual rights are too small for practical irrigation purposes such rights be combined wherever feasible and rotated among the various users in such manner as to deliver to each the total quantity of water which he would receive if distribution were made on the basis of continuous flow as outlined in the determination. Where it is not feasible to combine the flow determined to several rights it is recommended that the flow distributed to isolated rights be increased to give a stream sufficient for practical irrigation purposes and the time decreased in such a way as to deliver to such rights the same amount of water as would be delivered if the continuous flow determined to the right should be distributed. Such combination of rights and of flow are matters of practical distribution and should be under control of the river water commissioner. RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT The rights to the use of water are decreed to the various parties substantially as set forth in this determination but it is further recommended that the Court retain jurisdiction of this case, for a period of five years for the purpose of making adjustments in the duty of water, corrections of errors and for such other purposes as time may indicate to the Court as proper and just. BENEFICAL USE OF WATER That notwithstanding this determination of water rights, users of water shall at no time divert more water than can be beneficially used, and waste of water is prohibited. Decree entered December 12, 1925. Thos. H. Burton, Judge.