mission and Court of Industrial Relations, as well as State Board of Health also reported to have certain jurisdiction. P.-domestic, municipal, and railroad water supply; U.-county artesian well boards.

Kentucky (2, 2c). A.-none.

Louisiana (2, 2b). A.-none; B.-special legislation necessary in each case to authorize taking surface waters; U.-State Board of Health only. State owns most surface waters and beds thereof, and may sell to a city these underwater lands but "there shall never be any charge . . . . for the use of the waters of the State for municipal, agricultural or domestic purposes." Maine (2, 2b). A.-none; B.-special legislation necessary in each case to authorize the construction of water works; the "great ponds" and lakes of more than 10 acres are owned by the State.

Maryland (2, 2b). A.-none; B.-special legislation necessary in each case for a municipality, but not for a private corporation; U.-same as A.

Massachusetts (2, 2b). A.-State Department of Public Health, Boston; B. special legislation necessary in each case (see details, Group 2b); U.―same as A. and B.

Michigan (2, 2c).

Minnesota (2, 2c).

A.-none.

A.-none; B.-State Board of Health should be notified

Montana (1, 1b). A.-none; B.-for surface waters file notice of appropriation with county clerk and recorder if stream has not been adjudicated; if adjudicated, supplemental decree required.

Nebraska (1, 1a). A.-Department of Public Works, Bureau of Irrigation, Power and Drainage, Lincoln, for surface waters; P.-domestic use in time of scarcity; U.—waste of artesian water prohibited.

Nevada (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Carson City; U.-same as A; waste of artesian water prohibited.

New Hampshire (2, 2c). A.-none.

New Jersey (2, 2a). A.-Board of Conservation and Development, Trenton; grants to private water companies made for limited periods, to municipalities for unlimited periods; state makes an annual charge per million gallons for water diverted; U.-same as A (see details, Group 2a).

New Mexico (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Santa Fe; U.-same as A.

New York (2, 2a). A.-Water Control Commission, Albany; U.—same as A. (see details, group 2a).

North Carolina (2, 2c). A.-none.

North Dakota (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Bismarck, for surface waters. Ohio (2, 2c). A.-none.

Oklahoma (1, 1a). A.-Commission of Drainage, Irrigation and Reclamation, Oklahoma City, or Board of Directors of conservancy district in which surface sources are situated; P.-domestic and municipal.

Oregon (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Salem, for surface waters; P.-domestic and municipal; water may be withdrawn from appropriation by State Engineer or by legislature and held for future use of municipalities.

Pennsylvania (2, 2a): A.-private water companies chartered, bought, sold or consolidated since April 13, 1905, and those which have accepted certain legislation and surrendered rights of eminent domain, also companies which lack such rights, must have approval of the Water and Power Resources Board, Department of Forests and Waters, Harrisburg, to condemn or to divert; all municipalities and all private water companies must have the Board's permit before building or altering a dam.

Tennessee (2, 2c). A.-none specifically charged with this duty; B.Quarterly County Court exercises control over waters within the county which are navigable in law or in fact and has power to make an allocation; blanket authority to take any necessary waters is also obtained through special legislation.

Texas (1, 1a). A.-Board of Water Engineers, Austin; U.—artesian wells, as to use, waste, reports, etc., by Board of Water Engineers.

Utah (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Salt Lake City.

Washington (1, 1a). A.-Supervisor of Hydraulics, Department of Conservation and Development, Olympia; P.-in condemnation proceedings the court determines which use will be for the greatest public benefit, and an inferior use may be condemned for a superior use; U.-artesian wells, as to use and waste, by Supervisor of Hydraulics.

West Virginia (2, 2c). A.-none; P.-State Department of Health has no control over coal mine drainage and manufacturing wastes.

Wisconsin (2, 2c). A.-none; B.-State Railroad Commission, Madison, with reference to such diversion as would interfere with navigation and other public rights in navigable streams or lakes; U.-State Board of Health only. Wyoming (1, 1a). A.-State Engineer, Cheyenne; P.-domestic, municipal and railroad use; U.—well defined streams, same as A; percolating waters (ordinary wells) not under state control.

Discussion by groups of states

The following discussion by groups of states is necessarily generalized. Details with respect to any state will be found in the circulars of information and the rules and regulations issued by the administrative authority, if any, and in the statutes.

Group 1. Priority of appropriation to beneficial use the guiding principle. The principle of priority of appropriation to beneficial use as the basis of water rights, complicated in some cases by the recognition of coexistent, but generally more or less limited, riparian rights, prevails in the 17 states lying west of but not bordering on

the Mississippi river. Under this principle the application of water to a beneficial use is regarded as a public use; it generally carries with it rights of eminent domain. Priority in time of appropriation gives the better right, not only to use the waters of the source, but as to the amount of water which may be taken in time of scarcity, and beneficial use is "the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right" in point of time, the rights to water not promptly put to beneficial use or use of which is abandoned reverting to the state and becoming subject to a new appropriation.

The principle that "the first in time shall be the first in right" is subject to certain modifications as where limited stream flow is distributed among water right holders by state agents, and in those states which have established preferred classes of use. In such cases domestic use, including municipal water supply, being in the highest preference class, diversion of water for municipal and domestic purposes may be allowed at the expense of an earlier appropriation for an inferior use, subject to due compensation; or domestic and municipal use may be given statutory preference as to quantity in time of scarcity.

The doctrine of riparian rights has been recognized in the Pacific states and in Nebraska and Texas, concurrently with the doctrine of appropriation, with which it is hopelessly inconsistent. The tendency of legislation and court decisions in these states has generally been to sharply limit riparian rights. In California, however, this doctrine was held by the State Supreme Court to be superior to appropriative claims. Legislation which would forfeit unused riparian rights is now under court review.

Group 1a. Appropriation under administrative control. Gradually, over a period of 35 years, most of the western states have developed comprehensive water codes, placing control of the appropriation and use of their waters in the hands of an administrative officer or board, for the purpose of removing, so far as possible, the causes of litigation and promoting the most complete and effective utilization of the water resources of the state. This officer or board generally supervises design and construction of dams, etc., has important functions in the determination and recordation of water rights, and has general administrative supervision over the utilization and distribution of the waters of the streams. Rules of procedure governing the filing of applications and the subsequent steps in perfecting a water right may be had from the administrative authority in each state.

This administration has been highly successful in determining water rights and in obviating litigation. It is reported to be generally effective with

respect to municipal supplies except that, in several states, notably at Sacramento, California,2 contamination by return water from irrigation is becoming serious.

Group 1b. Appropriation not under administrative control. In the remaining states of the western group a water right is generally acquired by merely filing a notice of appropriation. In Montana, if the stream has not been adjudicated, it is merely necessary to file a notice with the county clerk and recorder; if the stream has been adjudicated a supplemental decree of the court is required. In Colorado filing is made in the State Engineer's office, but the water officials are not required to turn any of the waters of the public streams to such appropriator until his rights have been decreed by the court. In respect to the appropriation the State Engineer's office acts merely as an office of record; in respect to the administration of streams it performs most of the functions of the administrative authority as described for the preceding group.

Group 2. Riparian rights the fundamental doctrine. The commonlaw doctrine of riparian rights, as opposed to the principle of prior appropriation of natural waters, prevails in 30 of the 31 states bordering on or east of the Mississippi river. The exception is Louisiana which recognized neither principle (see table). In the states of Group 2 statutory preference in favor of water supply is generally limited to legislation prohibiting the pollution of waters used for domestic or municipal supply and to that giving the state boards of health control over the disposal of sewage and industrial wastes and over the sanitary quality of public water supplies. In a few states, notably West Virginia, the limited control over coal mine, oil well, or other industrial drainage may make certain streams unsuitable for public water supply.

Group 2a. Right to develop water supply granted by an administrative body. Of the eastern group of states, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, now3 exercise control, directly through an administrative body, over the taking of waters for municipal supply. In Pennsylvania this control is very incomplete, being limited to certain private water companies. In New York and New Jersey control is complete over all takings for water supply purposes from either surface or underground sources, and these two states afford the most perfect examples of comprehensive administrative control with the primary purpose of securing the equitable apportion2 Control of Appropriations of Water in California. Edward Hyatt, Jr., Journal A. W. W. A., February 1925.

April, 1925. A bill to establish such control in Rhode Island failed of passage in the last legislature. See also Tennessee and Group 2c.

ment of the water supply resources of the state among the communities and inhabitants thereof. In both states the applicant files with the administrative body a petition for approval of the project, accompanied by maps, plans and complete data of the project and the reasons therefor. After published notice and public hearing of applicant and objectors the administrative body rejects, modifies or approves the project. The right to acquire water rights and the right of eminent domain are contingent upon prior approval by the administrative body which, before giving such approval, must determine that the plans proposed (a) are justified by public necessity; (b) are just and equitable to others, with especiał regard to the present and future water supply necessities of other municipalities and civil divisions of the state; (c) provide for proper and safe construction, in New Jersey of dams, in New York of all works connected with the project. In New York the administrative body must also determine that the project (d) makes due provision for the determination and payment of all legal damages, direct and indirect; (e) will provide water of suitable sanitary quality. The New Jersey administrative body has no jurisdiction over sanitary quality, but the State Department of Health must approve before the water may be supplied for public use. Both states provide for court review.

Group 2b. Right to develop water supply acquired through special legislation. In a few states special legislation is necessary in each case to authorize the taking of water for a public water supply, in Massachusetts from any source, surface or underground, and by either a municipality or a water company; in the other states either from surface sources only, or by municipalities only. There is no administrative allocation except in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts plans for a water supply development must be submitted to the State Department of Public Health before petitioning the General Court for a charter or authority to take water from any source, and the Department's advice and recommendation thereon must accompany such petition. The Department is required to consider the existing and future needs of other municipalities and persons which may be affected by the project. The legislature has for many years adopted the Department's recommendations. and provided, in each case, that the source of supply and the location ♦ State legislature.