CHAPTER IV.

FUTURE WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT.

The service which this department has rendered to the farmers of the state by visiting their farms to aid them in planning irrigation projects and pumping plants has been very valuable and should undoubtedly be continued in its present scope. However, visiting farms for the purpose of advising as to the feasibility of a proposed farm irrigation project or furnishing information and plans for farm irrigation plants is properly college extension work. If that work now being done by the irrigation commissioner duplicated the work of the extension department, or conflicted with it, it should be turned over to the division of college extension of the Agricultural College. In the past there has been no duplication or conflict. While the irrigation commissioner has been at work in one locality the extension department has been at work in another. Both departments have done nearly the same amount of this work, and have had as large a demand for such services as they could supply. Neither department could have done all of this work without nearly doubling its present working force.

COMPILATION AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION.

A great deal of information can and should be gathered which will be of great value to the state in working out its irrigation problems along broad lines, and the publication of which will serve to encourage irrigation development in the state. It is in these lines that the irrigation commissioner can render the greatest service to the state.

Of more immediate importance is the necessity of securing additional data on the cost of pumping water and the value of this water in the production of crops. Tests should be made on a great many irrigation plants of different types and in different localities. Data should be gathered on the application of this water to field crops, and the yields obtained as compared to the yields of unirrigated crops grown under similar conditions. The publication of this information would do much to promote the better use of water as an aid to agriculture.

More information should be secured and published concerning the methods of putting in irrigation wells and the tools and machinery used for such work. More irrigation plants fail because of improperly constructed irrigation wells than from any other cause.

Irrigation wells are sunk thirty, forty and fifty feet apart, respectively, by three of the leading irrigation-well contractors in the state, where a battery of wells is used. No information is available showing what the most economical spacing for these wells is, or, when so located, how much one well interferes with the water supply of another. Information of this kind can be secured by experimenting with wells already in operation. Its publication would do much toward securing the greatest amount of water from a given area with the least expenditure of money for wells.

Some information relative to the draw-down of the water table due to pumping and its recovery after pumping ceases is essential to the future of irrigation development. Our supply of ground water has commonly been referred to as inexhaustible. It is only relatively so. No doubt there is a more abundant supply of ground water than will be utilized by the present generation, and therefore for our purposes it is inexhaustible. Nevertheless it is a well-known fact that the continued pumping of large quantities of water does cause a lowering of the ground-water table and at least a temporary depletion of the supply. Data showing the effect on the water supply from pumping for irrigation is essential to the formation of laws to regulate the use of ground water for irrigation and for the protection of early appropriators in their rightful use of water.

CHAPTER V.

IRRIGATION LAWS.

In many respects our irrigation laws have not kept pace with the progress of irrigation. Many of them are obsolete so far as their present use is concerned. Some are so limited in their scope that instead of encouraging the use of water for irrigation they tend to limit it. Water rights are recorded in such a manner that there is no uniform method of filing, and the rights of appropriators are not properly safeguarded.

With a view to suggesting some of the most needed and helpful legislation, the irrigation commissioner has given much time to a study of the operation of our present laws and has conferred with many of the bestinformed irrigation men in the state. The discussion which follows was prepared by H. B. Walker, engineer for the Kansas Water Commission, following a conference which the irrigation commissioner had with him. In incorporating this material in his report the irrigation commissioner has made some changes, which for the most part relate to the officials who shall administer the laws suggested.

THE RIGHT TO USE WATER.

The Kansas legislature of 1886 passed a law for the appropriation of water for irrigation purposes. Since that time numerous laws have been enacted relating to irrigation, yet our method of appropriating water has changed but little during the past thirty-four years. Appropriators desiring water need only to post a notice at the point of diversion, stating therein that the person, company or corporation claims the water flowing to the extent of so many cubic feet per second. Such notice shall also describe and define the point of diversion and shall state in general terms the method by which water is to be diverted. A copy of this notice must likewise be posted in the office of the county clerk of the county in which such place of diversion is situated, and finally the record of appropriation is filed in the office of the register of deeds of that county.

THE KANSAS METHOD OBSOLETE.

The Kansas method of appropriating water is obsolete and subject to many inaccuracies of record. Only one other state in the Union has a similar method of appropriation. This is the state of Montana. All other irrigation states require water rights to be granted by some central state authority, which results in more accurate and uniform records and a better-guarded and more valuable water right. Water is a natural resource having a definite value to the state. Kansas surely recognized this when it passed a law outlining a method by which water could be appropriated for use in irrigation. Those who have taken advantage of the opportunity to use this water are developing one of the state's natural resources and in doing this they are surely entitled to the full protection of the law in their development.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE KANSAS METHOD.

Some of the outstanding disadvantages of the Kansas method of securing water rights are: First, the lack of uniformity in methods of filing and in quantities of water appropriated; second, a cumbersome method of recording which makes a review of appropriations on a stream difficult; third a questionable economic value of the water right to the appropriator.

The Kansas method of appropriating water does not permit of uniformity either in method or in quantities of water appropriated. Individuals may use their own personal method of making application so long as they post notices at the proper places and insert some figure therein to indicate the approximate quantity of water desired and the general method and place of diversion. Ten cubic feet per second may be claimed for the irrigation of ten acres, or the appropriator may claim one cubic foot per second for 1,000 acres. No one with proper authority or knowledge checks the application, and since it is the duty of the register of deeds only to keep a record of the appropriation, he is not interested in the quantity of water claimed. Obviously such a plan is not logical, and under the Kansas law, where individual farmers or water users make application probably not oftener than once or twice in a generation, and where the register of deeds is simply a recorder of applications, holding office during a limited period, no great uniformity in method of filing or quantity appropriated can be expected. Kansas is undoubtedly making a mistake by permitting her water resources to be parceled out in such an unsystematic manner.

After an appropriation for water has been made our laws do not provide a definite method of proof as a final claim to the water right. While it is required that work must begin upon the project within a certain time, no provision is made for a proper state official with authority to determine or record this fact. The whole outcome is a set of water records filed in the office of the register of deeds which is in many cases of doubtful value. Furthermore, should any loan association, company or citizen desire to inspect the records of the water filings on any particular stream of the state to determine the amount, priorities or value thereof, it would be necessary for that company or person to make an inspection of the filings in the office of the register of deeds in the various counties through which the stream passes. A review of such records would undoubtedly show a large variation in the method of filing and quantities appropriated, and, moreover, such investigations would be expensive and of doubtful value to the investigator.

A real water right has an economic value. In dry or arid countries the value of a water right is often many times greater than the value of the land. Naturally in such areas purchasers of property carefully investigate the water records before buying the land. It is very doubtful if a large number of the alleged water rights in the state of Kansas have any real definite value. It can hardly be expected that purchasers of property will take the trouble to go over our complicated records of filing to determine the actual value and priority of a water right. The tendency will be to discount the values simply because Kansas has no simple