OCR Text |
Show 45 of restricting potential water users from an already fully appropriated water source, the system would have been adequate to protect established rights. Unfortunately, no such mechanism existed. Therefore, arbitration and the courts remained the common solution to the problem of excess appropriations. 14 These problems were faced and in some measure solved when the legislature, acting on a suggestion from the State Engineer's Office and others, again undertook to define water rights and water institutions in another fundamental water law in 1903.15 According to this measure, water rights were declared to exist when people used water for a beneficial purpose and when the use did not reduce or infringe upon existing rights. The law of 1903 confirmed the right to use water as property and established the framework of a system to accurately determine who owned the water rights and to record any transfers or acquisitions of such property. Furthermore, the law stipulated that new water rights could only be acquired by petitioning the State Engineer's Office for recognition of the proposed use. The State Engineer had the responsibility to determine if unappropriated water actually existed and if the proposed use met the beneficial use criteria. 16 If these conditions were met, he was to grant a water right. Therefore, the law gave the authority to stop excess appropriations to the Office of the State Engineer. This law achieved the goals of the earlier laws in that it provided for existing water rights to be measured, recorded and protected. Once recorded, water rights could not be transferred without a formal deed and without notifying the State Engineer and the county recorder that such a transfer was taking place. The 1903 law also utilized the concept of water commissioners, as provided for by the 1901 law. The State Engineer was to divide the state into water divisions and these divisions into districts and appoint superintendents for the divisions and supervisors for the districts. These state officials were given the responsibility to divide and allocate water resources according to the recorded water rights. With the passage of the 1903 water right law, the legislature finally provided Utah's citizens with an effective system of water administration. Both present and future water rights were protected. Officers could now be appointed to deal with distribution problems in each area of the state and water rights were well defined. Current water law uses the 1903 measure as its foundation. Evidence of the soundness of the system has been demonstrated by the results of its operation. The application of the 1903 law has tended to reduce the amount of conflict among water users. The increased certainty relating to the validity of water rights promoted cooperation among water users and an increase in investment into water development. The Utah State Board of Land Commissioners In addition to providing a legal foundation, the legislature established agencies to administer water resources in the first years of statehood. A major step in this process was taken in 1896, when the legislature established the Utah State Board of Land Commissioners. This body was 4This shortcoming is demonstrated by the amount of water rights litigation occurring during this period. This litigation is cited in State of Utah, " Second Biennial Report of the State Engineer to the Governor of the State of Utah for the Years 1899 and 1900," Public Documents, pp 52- 55 as a justification for overhauling Utah's water law along the lines of Wyoming's process. 1 For the provisions of the 1903 law see State of Utah, Laws of the State of Utah Passed at the Fifth Regular Session of the Legislature of the State of Utah held at Salt Lake City, the State Capital, in January, February, and March, 1903 ( Provo, Utah: Skelton Publishing Company, 1903), Chapter 100. pp 89- 107. 16State of Utah, Laws of the State of Utah, ( 1903), Chapter 100, Sections 6, 13, 36, 39, and 45. pp 89- 90, 91- 92, 98, 99, and 101. |