!::;r'.: ii:':: :!i':' li'iiiiiiiiiiii ;';'!M''! '|||||ii||||||||; 1P)|J'» ;'ii!!M I'lili Cache Creek Document CLEAR LAKE WATER COMPANY y U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 100, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrigation Investigations. Plate I. Relief Map of California. Bulletin No. 100. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF EXPERIMEN.T STATIONS, A. C. TRUE, Director. Irrigation Inireatlgalion)>, Elnrood iOlead, Expert in Ciiaree. 395 REPORT rXDER THE DIRECTION OP ELWOOD :yiE^^D ASSISTED BY WILLIAM E. SMYTHE, MAR8DEN MAMSON, J. M. WrLSON, CHARLES D. MAKX, FEANK 80ULE, C. E. GRUNSKT, EDWARD M. 30008, and JAKES D. SCHtJTLER, "WASHINGTON: GOVERNMEXT PRINTING OFFICE. 1901. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS ON IRRIGATION. Bui. 36. Notes on Irrigation in Connecticut and New Jersey. By 0. S. Plielps and E. B. Voorhees. Pp. 64. Price, 10 cents. Bui. 58. Water Rights on the Missouri River and its Tributaries. By El wood Mead. Pp.80, price, 10 cents. Bui. 60. Abstract of Laws for Acquiring Titles to Water from the Missouri River and its Tributaries, with the Legal forms in Tse. Compiled liy Elwood Mead. Pp. 77. Price, 10 cents. Bui. 70. Water-Right Problems of Bear River. By Clarence T. Johnston and Joseph A. Breckona. Pp. 40. Price, 15 cents. Bui. 73. Irrigation in the Rocky Mountain States. By J. C. Ulrich. Pp. 64. Price, 10 cents. Bui. 81. The Use of AVater in Irrigation in Wyoming. By B. C. Buffum. Pp. .56. Price, 10 cents. Bui. 86. The Use of Water in Irrigation. Report of investigations made in 1899, under the super- vision of Elwood Mead, expert in charge, and C. T. Johnston, assistant. Pp. 253. Pricfi, 30 cents. TBul. 87. Irrigation in New Jersey. By Edward B. Voorhees. Pp. 40. Price, 5 cents. Bui. 90. Irrigation in Hawaii. By Walter Maxwell. Pp. 48. Price, 10 cent.s. Bui. 92. The Reservoir System of the Cache la Poudre Valley. By E. S. Nettleton. Pp. 48. Price, 15 cents. Bui. 96. Irrigation Laws of the Northwest Territories of Canada and Wyoming, with Discussions. By J. S. Dennis, Fred Bond, and J. M. Wilson. Pp. 90. Price, 10 cents. farmers' BfLLETIX.S. Bul. 46. Irrigation in Humid Climates. By F. H. King. Pp. 27. Bui. 116. Irrigation in Fruit Growing. By E. J. Wickson. P]>. 18. Bul. 138. Irrigation in Field and Garden. By E. J. Wickson. Pp. 40. 'For those publications to which a price is affixed application should be made to the Superin- tendent of Documents, Union Building, Washington, D. C, the officer designated by law to sell ■Government publications. LETTER OF TRAXSMIHAL U. S Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Washington^ D. C, June 15, 1901. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, and to recommend for publication, a report on irrigation investigations conducted in California during 1900 by the Office of Experiment Stations in cooperation with the California Water and Forest Asso- ciation, under the supervision of Prof. Elwood Mead, expert in charge of irrigation investigations in this Office. The investigations consisted of observations b}' irriga- tion experts on the existing legal, engineering, and agricultural conditions along nine tj'pical streams used for irrigation in bhe State. The growing value and increasing scarcity of water are creating an imperative need for better laws to control the dis- tribution of streams in California, and there is much public interest in this subject in the State. The general conclusions agreed to by all of the agents and experts taking part in the investigations, with the views set forth in their separate reports, will, it is believed, indicate the nature of the reforms required to put agriculture under irrigation in California on a more enduring and satisfactoiy basis, and thus to promote the more rapid and successful development of the State's resources. Respectfully, A. C. True, Director. Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Irrigation Investigations, Cheyenne^ Wyo., June 1, 1901. Sir: I have the honor to submit for publication the report of an investigation of the irrigation problems of California made under Vl\\ supervision during 1900. but carried out b}'^ the experts in charge with only general directions from me. The reports of these experts aim to present an accurate statement of existing conditions along nine streams in different parts of the State, which are believed to be typical of what exist elsewhere. The names of those in charge and the location of their labors are as follows: Name of expert. Name of stream. William E. Smythe Susan River. Marsc'en Manson Yuba River. James M. Wilson Cache Creek. C. E. Grunsky Kings River. Frank Soul^ San Joaquin River. C. D. Marx Salinas River. Edward M. Boggs Los Angeles River. James D. Schuyler San Jacinto River and Sweetwater River. In submitting their reports these experts have acknowledged their obligations for assistance received from the following persons: William E. Smjthe to his a.ssistants. Albert Halen, C. E., of Standish, and W. D. Minckler. of Susanville; Marsden Manson to Mr. H. D. H. Connick, assistant engineer, and Mr. F. F. S. Kelsej-, draftsman; Mr. J. M. Wilson to Mr. Frank Adams and Mr. P. N. Ashley, assistants: C. E. Grunsky to his two field assistants, Mr. E. F. Haas and Mr. F. C. Hermann, and to Mr. J. C. Henkenius, draftsman. Acknowledgment of courtesies from parties not directly emploj^ed in the inves- tigations are also made. To the engineers and officers of a number of mining and water companies on Yuba River: to the chamber of commerce and officials and citizens of Yolo, Lake, and Colusa counties; to a number of professors of the Uni- versity of California and Leland Stanford Junior University; to railroad companies; to canal companies, and to many individuals. The large number of persons who have cooperated with these experts and assisted in this work prevents a more detailed acknowledgment of courtesies extended. To the California Water and Forest Association special acknowledgment is due 5 6 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. because of the finincial aid received. The substantial character of this assistance is shown by the amounts of its contribution, as given in the following summary: Kings River $1, 125. 00 San Joaquin River 1, 125. 00 ' Salinas River 375. 00 Yuba River 375. 00 Honey Lake Basin 375. 00 Caciie Creek 625. 00 Maps, reports, etc 625. 00 In addition to the above, individuals and local associations have contributed $250 toward the expenses of work on Stoney Creek, now being carried on by the Department of Agriculture, but not included in this report. The work in southern California was paid for entirely by the Department. This included the reports of Messrs. Schuyler and Boggs, and studies of the dutj- of water carried on by Mr. Irving to be published in a later bulletin. Acknowledgment is also due to Mr. R. P. Teele, editor of this office, for assist- ance in editing these reports and preparing them for publication, and to Mr. C. E. Tait, draftsman. Respectfully, Elwood Mead, Irrigation Expert in Charge Dr. A. C. True, Director. CONTENTS. Page. The AoRicrLTfRAL Sitcation in California. By Elwood Mead 17 Introductiou 17 Reform of water laws a State matter 20 The scope and purpose of this investigation 20 Duty of investigators 21 Plan of the work 22 Reasons for restricting discussion of water-right problems to irrigation 24 The present and future of irrigation in California 25 Irrigation in southern California 25 Irrigation in northern California 26 Diversified farming under irrigation ; 28 California, Egypt, and Italy comparetl 29 Obstacles to development 29 California and Utah compared 31 Opposition to irrigation 31 The desire for large enterprises 32 Controversies over district enterprises 33 Obstacles presented by inadequate water laws 34 Appropriations for sale, rental, or distribution 38 Riparian rights 42 Legislation respecting riparian rights in English colonies 49 Canada 49 Province of Victoria, Australia 51 Province of New South Wales, Australia 62 Need of adequate State control of streams 53 The need of a sjiecial tribunal to settle existing rights 68 Abstract of litigation over rights to Kings River 68 Attorneys and courts not responsible 62 The nature of rights to water 63 Should appropriations be made perpetual or be limited, like franchises, to a number of years 64 Concluding suggestions 65 Jurisdiction of special tribunal 65 The importance of adequate preliminary surveys and investigations 66 The favoring conditions for these adjudications 66 The protection of rights to water 67 The acquirement of rights hereafter 67 Navigation rights on Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers 68 Term of office 69 8 CONTENTS. Pa ire. The irrigation problems of Honey Lake Basfn, Cal. B\' William E. Smythe 71 Introductory 71 History and resources 71 Description of the country , 72 Climate and products 72 Surrounding resources, 73 A variety of problems 73 Tlie water supply of Honej' Lake Basin 74 Honey Lake serves to measure tlie sup])l y 75 Character of watershed 76 Storage sites 77 Eagle I^ake 78 Recent water measurements 80 Appropriation and distribution of water 80 The law of appropriation at work 83 Claims on Susan River 84 Claims to Willow Creek 85 Balls Canyon claims 86 Claims to Long Valley Creek 86 The Lake district 87 Claims to waters of Eagle Lake 87 Recapitulation and review 88 The duty of water 89 The distribution of water 90 Litigation 91 The Susan River communities 92 Cause and character of lawsuits 94 The "Big water suit" 95 Some bewildering decisions 96 The stipulation as to storage 98 The building of the "Colony Dam " 99 Merits and lessons of the controversy 100 Contracts of irrigation companies 102 The needed reform of California laws 103 Private or public ownership of water 105 The larger irrigation problem of the basin 107 The failure of past enterprises 107 The water-right system. 108 The cooperative canal 109 Possibilities of the Carey law 109 State and national works 110 Hope in the district system 110 Conclusions Ill Features and water rights of Yuba River, Cal. By Marsden Manson 115 Watershed of Yuba River 115 Physical features and geology 1 16 Nature, origin, and acquisition of water rights in the basin of Yuba River 118 Claims filed on Yuba River and its tributaries 121 Storage of water in tlie basin of Yuba River 121 Artificial storage facilities on Yuba River 123 South Fork 123 Middle Yuba 125 North Yuba 125 CONTENTS. 9 Features and water rights of Yuba River, Cal. — Continue*!. page. Storage of water in the Vjasin of Yuba River — Continuefl. Fore.st storage 126 Development of power on Yul)a River 127 Opinions upon points submitted in circular letter 128 Appendix 130 The use of the water of Yuba River. By H. D. H. Connick '. 130 Browns Valley irrigation district 131 Practice of irrigation 132 Duty of water 132 Irrigation of alfalfa 132 Irrigation of orchards 133 Irrigation of hay and grain 133 Irrigation of corn and strawljerries 134 Methods used by Sam Sing Company 134 Loss by seepage and evaporation 134 Loss by unskillful irrigation and insufficient preparation of land 134 Measurement , 134 Season of irrigation 135 Soil 135 Effect of irrigation on soil 135 Effect on health 135 Value of land 135 Method of distributing the water 136 Duty of water around Auburn 136 Cost of raising olives and peaches 137 Value of produce .'. - 138 Cost of raising peaches 138 Principal ditches and reservoirs in the basin of Yuba River 139 South Yuba Water Company 139 The South Yuba Canal system 140 The sale of water 141 Value of the projierty 1 42 Summit Water and Irrigation Company 142 Kate Hayes Company . ., 144 North Bloomfield Gravel and Mining Company 145 Irrigation 147 Marysville and Nevada Power Company 147 Canals 147 Reservoirs ■ 148 Excelsior Water and ilining Company 148 Rough and Ready Ditch 149 New Town Ditch 149 Woods Ravine Ditch 149 Pleasant Valley Ditch 150 Ousley Bar Dit«h 150 Farm Ditch 150 Spenceville Ditch 150 Dams 151 Reservoirs 151 Rights in Deer Creek •■ 151 • Water rights in South Yuba 152 New Blue Point Mining Company's ditch 152 Power stations in the basin of Yuba River 153 10 CONTENTS. Page. Irrigation investigations on Cache Creek. By J. M. Wilson 155 Introduction 155 Cache Creek 156 Storage 158 Power possibilities of Cache Creek 160 Soil '. 160 Wheat growing 163 Appropriation laws of California 164 Irrigation from Cache Creek 171 History of other attempted appropriations and consequent litigation 176 Pumping plants 183 Duty of water 187 Present conditions and possibilities of Yolo County 187 Definitions of titles to water 189 Report on irrigation problems in the Salinas Valley. By Charles D. Marx 193 Irrigation problems in the Salinas Valley 193 Claims to the waters of Salinas River and its tributaries 195 Storage 198 Use of underground waters 198 Duty of water 199 Methods of distribution 199 Irrigation in Salinas Valley 201 Cases on irrigation and water rights arising in the counties of Monterey, San Benito, and San Luis Obispo, decided by the California supreme court 204 Zimmler r. San Luis Water Company 204 Green v. Carotta 204 Burrows v. Burrows 205 Smith c. Corbit 205 San Luis Water Company v. Estrada 206 Summary 206 Appendix 208 Water-bearing gravels and formations tributary to the underground water supply of the Salinas Valley in Monterey County. By Edward H. Nutter 208 Conclusions 212 Irrigation from the San Joaquin River. By Frank Socle 215 Introduction 215 A brief history of the development of irrigation in California and in the San Joaquin Valley. 216 Physical features of the San Joaquin Valley 218 The San Joaquin River ., 218 The soils in the drainage area of San Joaquin River 220 Rainfall 222 Flow of the river 222 Climate 222 Products 223 Irrigated tracts in the valley and possible extensions 223 Fresno River 225 Chowchilla Creek 226 Estimate of total area of land which might be irrigated from San Joaquin and Fresno rivers and Chowchilla Creek 226 Appropriation and di8tri\)ution of water 228 Summary 232 Evolution of water laws in California 234 Statutory laws relating to water rights 235 Rights of riparian proprietors 235 CONTENTS. 11 Ibrigation from the San Joaquin Rivek — Continued. P«ge. Evolution of water laws in California — Continued. The Wright district law 236 Litigation over water rights on San Joaquin and Fresno rivers and Chowchilla Creek 237 In the superior court of Fresno County 237 In the superior court of Madera County 242 In the superior court of Merced County 245 In the superior court of Mariposa County 245 Investigations in the field 246 Canals on San Joaquin River 246 Upper San Joaquin River Canal Company 246 The Aliso Canal 247 The Chowchilla Canal 247 TheBlyth Canal 247 The East Side Canal 247 The James Canal 248 The irrigation system of the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company 248 Canals on Fresno River 249 Canals on Chowchilla Creek 250 Sierra Vista Vineyard Company 250 Bliss Canal 250 Distribution of water among canals 250 Distribution of water among irrigators 252 Methods of irrigating 253 Duty of water 254 Answers to a circular letter of inquiry concerning irrigation matters 254 Conclusions 255 Methods of filing and recording claims to water 2-55 Adjudication of water rights 256 Influence of the doctrine of riparian rights on the success of irrigation 256 Stream control 257 State engineer 257 Where claims should be recorded 257 Conservation and use of flood waters, and legislation thereon . . . ■. 257 Water appropriations from KiNCiS River. By C. E. Grunskv 2.59 Kings River 259 Watershed 260 Valley section of Kings River 261 Lands irrigated 262 Tulare Lake 265 Rainfall and climate 266 The flow of Kings River 267 AVater storage 269 Claims to water 269 Insufficiency of the record 270 Water laws and water rights 272 W^ater-right litigation 276 Kings River canals 282 San Joaquin and Kings River Canal 282 Sanger Flume 283 Ditches of Centerville Bottoms 283 Rice Ditch 284 Jacobie Diteh 284 The Dunnigan-Byrd Ditch 284 12 CONTENTS. Water appropriations from Kings River — Continued. Page. Kings River canals — Continued. Ditches of Centerville Bottoms — Continued. Hanke Ditcli 284 Cameron Ditch 284 Dennis Ditch 284 Byrd Ditch 285 The New Jack Ditch 285 Mitchell Ditch 285 Fink Channel 285 Jack Ditch 285 Fink Ditch 286 Kings River and Fresno Canal 286 Fresno Canal 286 Centerville Ditch 1 289 Sweem Ditch 290 Fowler Switch Canal 290 Centerville and Kingsburg Canal 291 Alta Irrigation District 293 Selma Irrigation District 296 Sunset Irrigation District 296 Carmelita Ditch 297 Peoples Ditch : 297 Mussel Slough Ditch 299 Last Chance Ditch 300 Leinberger Slough 301 Lower Kings River Canal 302 Rhoads Canal 304 Tulare Lake Bed canals 304 Kings Canal 304 West Side Canal 304 Clausen & Blakeley Canal 304 Lovelace Canal 304 . Emigrant Ditch 305 Liberty Canal 305 Murphy Slough Association 306 Millrace Canal 306 Turner Ditch 306 Reed Ditch 306 Ri verdale Ditch 307 Burrell Ditch 307 Roundtree Ditch 308 Laguna de Tache Rancho canals 308 Crescent Canal 310 Stimson Canal 311 Calamity Ditch 312 Hite Ditch 312 James East Side Canal 312 James West Side Canal 312 Pump irrigation from Fresno Slough 313 Whiteside Pump 313 Mitchler Pump 313 The Lee Pump 313 Borland Pump 314 Methods and practice of irrigation 314 CONTENTS. 13 Water appropriations from Kin-gs River — Continued. Page. The present situation 317 Need of a department for water control and investigation 321 Conclusions 322 Appendix 323 Evaporation experiments on Kings River 323 A STUDY OF W.ITER RIGHTS OX THE LoS AXGELES RiVER, CaL. Bv EdWARD M. BoGGS 327 Discovery and colonization 327 Irrigation in the pueblo 328 Los Angeles River 329 Claims to water on Los Angeles River 330 Laws of appropriation 332 Litigation 335 Los Angeles Water Company i: Los Angeles City 337 Feliz V. City of Los Angeles 337 Elms c. City of Los Angeles 3.39 Vernon Irrigation Company r. City of Los Angeles 339 City of Los Angeles r. Pomery et al 340 The City of Los Angeles v. West Los Angeles Water Company 342 Distribution and use of water 343 Conclusions 346 Present water law derived from mining law 347 Improved system of making appropriations needed 347 Water rights should attach to the land 348 Wasteful practice should not te permitted 348 Recommendations 349 Remarks on the foregoing recommendations 350 PROBLE.VIS OF WATER STORAGE OX TORRENTIAL STRE.4MS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AS TYPIFIED BY SwEETW.\TER AND SaN JaCINTO RIVERS. By Ja.mes D. Schuyler _. 353 Introduction 353 Sweetwater River 354 Physical characteristics 354 The duty of the stream 356 Claims to the water of Sweetwater River 3.59 Difficulty of finding claims to water in records 367 Unrecorded water rights 367 The duplication of the Sweetwater Dam water supply by subterranean water developments. 369 Riparian rights 374 Rights to water for mining, power, and domestic u.«es 377 The methods by which the amount and cliaracter of water rights are determined 377 Primary rights 377 Secondary rights 378 Litigation over water rights, its causes, cost, and influence on irrigation development, and the principles established by the decisions rendered 379 The National City water-rate case 379 Water-rate case of Lanning i: Osborne et al 380 Appeal from ordinance of supervisors fixing rates 382 The National City case, establishing that domestic use is not superior to irrigation 382 The Sharpe ca«e 382 The Hale water-right case 383 Cost of water litigation 384 Rights for storage and underground waters 384 Nature of an appropriation of water 384 Return seepage and its effect on water rights 384 Methods of distribution and duty of water 385 14 CONTENTS. Problems of water storage on torrential streams of southern California, etc. — Continued. Methods of distribution and duty of water — Continued. Page. Water-right contracts, water rates, etc 385 The fixing of water rates 388 Hemet Creek 389 Claims to water on Hemet Creek 390 The Hemet Dam 391 The irrigated lands 392 Water-right contracts 392 General conclusions 392 Recommendations of special agents and e.xperts - 397 Board of control 397 State hydraulic engineer 398 Unappropriated waters declared public property 398 Limitation on rights -• 398 Domestic use to be a preferred right 398 All rights to be based on use 398 Board of control to fix water rights 398 Right of eminent domain 399 Governor to appoint a commission to frame laws '399 State aid to districts 399 National aid 399 Cooperation of State and National governments with especial reference to Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers 399 Forest management 400 National aid for private land discouraged •- . 400 Reclamation of public lands • 400 Index 401 ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. Page. Pl.^te I. Relief map of California Frontispiece II. A typical irrigation scene — Branch of Fresno Canal 18 III. Irrigation scenes in California 24 IV. Agricultural scenes in California 28 Y. Horticultural scenes in California 28 VI. Map of California showing area included in the investigations 32 VII. Map of Susan River 92 VIII. Map of Yuba River 116 IX. Irrigation works, Upper Yuba River 124 X. In the valley of Yuba River 130 XI. Map of Cache Creek 156 XII. Section of Drake's relief map showing Clear Lake and Cache Creek district 156 XIII. Clear Lake and Cache Creek 158 XIV. Diagram showing precipitation in Clear Lake drainage basin 160 XV. Views along Moore Ditch 174 XVI. Irrigation works abandoned as result of litigation 180 XVII. Pumping plants along Cache Creek 182 XVIII. Orchard scenes along Cache Creek 188 XIX. Irrigation scenes along the Salinas River 202 XX. Irrigation scenes along the Salinas River 202 XXI. Irrigation scenes along the San Joaquin River 246 XXII. San Joaquin and Kings River Canal 246 XXIII. Canal .scenes 246 XXIV. Map of Kings River 260 XXV. Scenes on canals along Kings River 282 XXVI. Scenes on canals along Kings River 292 XXVII. Cobble and brush dam in Kings River 314 XXVIII. Map of Sweetwater River 354 XXIX. Typical scenes in southern California 356 TEXT FIGURES. Fig. 1 . Diagram showing variation in precipitation with altitude 122 2. Diagram showing depth of snow at Lake Fordyce 123 3. Diagram showing successive use of the water of Yuba River 127 4. Unusual types of dams in Yuba River 139 5. Conventional signs used in illustrating report on Salinas River 208 6. Outcrop of beds in Salinas Valley 209 7. Sand and shale beds in oil well 210 8. Slope in railway cut near Bradley 211 9. Probable structure of Salinas Valley through Chualar 212 10. Probable structure of Salinas Valley near Metz 213 15 16 ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. Fig. 11. Probable structure of Salinas Valley through San Lucas : 213 12. Rainfall at San Francisco, and fluctuations in depth of Tulare Lake 265 13. A. Headworks of Fresno and Fowler Switch canals 287 B. Headworks of Centerville and Kingsburg Canal 287 14. A. Headworks of Peoples Canal 298 B. Headworks of Last Chance and Leinberger canals 298 C. Headworks of Lower Kings River Canal 298 15. A. Lower Kings River Canal 302 B. Headworks of Emigrant Canal 302 C. Headworks of Liberty Canal 302 D. Headworks of South Millrace Ditch 302 E. Headworks of Turner Ditch 302 F. Headworks of Reed Ditch 302 16. A. Headworks of Riverdale and Burrell ditches 307 B. Headworks of Crescent Canal 307 C. Headworks of Stimson Canal 307 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA, By Elwood Mead, Irrigation Expert in Cliarge. INTRODUCTION. As an agTicultural State California stands alone. No other humid or arid commonwealth has as diversified products or high-priced farming land. In some respects the climate is marvelous in its possibilities. The usual limitations imposed by latitude are here set aside. Oranges ripen as early and surelv at Oi'oville, 100 miles north of San Francisco, as at San Dieao, 500 miles south of that city, and much of the State has the unique distinc- tion of being able to grow all the products of New England and of Floinda on the same acre of land. Sacramento, which has the same latitude as southern Illinois, is suiTounded by districts where blue-grass lawns are shaded by palm and orange trees. The summers are not too hot for the turf nor the winters too cold for the trees. Nowhere east of the mountain barrier formed by the SieiTas are these products grown together. On the east side of the range one has to travel south 500 miles to find a palm tree, while in Illinois the apple takes the place of the orange. It is the only State wdiere crops can be harvested with absolute assurance that rain will not fall to injure them, yet where these crops can be grown by the aid of rainfall alone. In much of the cultivated portion of the State irrigation is not a matter of necessity, but of choice. If a farmer is content to raise wheat, ditches may be dispensed with. If he wishes to add alfalfa and oranges, and to beautify his surroundings with the perpetual green of a lawn, he must provide an added water supply. Although irrigation is not a necessity, it is everywhere of value, because its magic brings into full fruition all of the attractions with which the State is so generously endowed. By its aid midsummer can be made almost as lovely as spring. It obviates or lessens the dust and discomfort of the rainless season and makes it possible to create rural homes which on the whole rej^resent an average of human comfort hardly to be equaled else- where in this country. It completes the marvelous combination which 23856— No. 100—01—2 1/ 18 IRRIOATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. makes winter a season of seed time instead of stagnation; which g-ives to farmers many of the products of the Tropics witli the cHmate of the temperate zone; which withholds moisture in liarvest time and thus reheves the hus- bandman of the most serious vicissitude of regions of ample rainfall. It is an aggregation of advantages which those Avho live elsewhere find it hard to believe exists, and which the people of the State do not fully appreciate. The delay in extending the watered area is due to obstacles local in character and origin and not met with in equal measure in aii-y other arid State. In no other State are rivers used for both irrigation and navigation. The owners of canals which divert the Sacramento and San Joaquin have to keep in mind the steamboats which ply on these rivers from San Francisco to Stockton and Red Bluffs. There are many miles of pipe lines in the Sierras which bear witness of an interrupted but not abandoned application of water in placer mining and which represent rights to streams which seem to grow more numerous and valuable with age and disuse. The recent improvements in transmitting power by electricity have enormously enhanced the utility of California streams for the generation of power. It used to be that the factory had to go to the stream ; now the stream is carried to the factory, even when far removed. , The i)ower of Tuolumne Ri^-er is being carried 160 miles to San Francisco, and this enterprise is only the foi-erunner of a development which will not cease until the latent force of the cascades in every mountain canyon has been harnessed in one way or another to the wheels of California's industries. When to these various interests we add the needs of irrigation, the management and control of the water supply assumes an overshadowing importance. No other element outside of land is of such general and primary necessity or is destined to exert an equal influence on the growth of the State in wealth and population. 'Jlie problem before the people of the State is to adjust the diverse and conflicting interests of navigation, mining', power, and irrigation; to provide a just and stable basis for titles to water in order to create an industrial civilization suited to the climatic and economic needs of a State where water and land are both important. The history of irrigation in California, from the time when the mission fathers first turned its streams on the thirsty soil, has shown an unusual minyling' of romance and selfishness. Men have worked with each other and for each other in cooj^erative ditch enterprises, many of which have been remarkably successful, while on the other hand they have sought to ])lace their neighbors in bondage by speculative appropriations of streams. Along with remarkaljle ability shown by engineers and irrigators in diverting and using rivers has gone controversy over water rights in the U. S- Dept. of Agr., Bui. ^00. Office of Expt. Stations, Irrigation '.nvestigations. Plate II. > -I CO o o o INTRODUCTION. 19 courts and armed raids to destroy headgates or interfere with tlie use of canals. Ability and success in material development have been rendered futile by marked failure in legislation. Some of the best examples of ditch construction to be found in this country are in Califoniia, but the operation of these works is embarrassed by legislation which violates every jjrinciple necessary to enduring success. The present situation is the natural outcome of this combination of favorable and adverse conditions. Although in-igated land in California has a greater value than in any other arid State, the watered area is as yet insignificant when compared to what is possible, and the rate of extension is slow. While Avater rents for a higher price than elsewhere, more runs to waste than is used. There are few places in the world where rural life has the attractions or possibilities which go with the irrigated home in California, yet immigration is almost at a stand.still and population in some of the farmed districts has decreased in the past ten years. It is certain that some potent but not natural cause is responsible for this, and this cause seems to be a lack of certainty or stability in water rights which has given an added hazard to ditch building and been a prolific source of litigation and neighborhood ill feeling. Farmers who desire to avoid the courts and live on terms of peace and concord with their neighbors avoid districts where these conditioiis prevail. Hence the obstacle to California's growth seems to have been unfavorable social conditions, rather than lack of natural opportunities. There is a widespread feeling that the time has come to improve this situation. The call for the convention which gave the first impulse to tliis investigation was due to the promptings of an awakened public spirit, seeking not solely the larger use of the State's resources, but the creation of better social and industrial conditions. It is hoped that the facts herein presented will at least show the need of action. The)- ought to do moi'e; they ought to lead to such changes in laws and methods as will define and make stable all existing rights and protect those rights when defined as far as human agencies can accomplish this result. The reports which follow give the results of the most comprehensive study yet made in this country of the social, legal, and economic problems created bv the use of streams to reclaim arid lands. It has been carried out under the direction of the Oflfice of Experiment Stations of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, but its effectiveness has been greatly increased by the financial aid extended by the Water and Forest Association and other local associations of the State. The appropriations for these studies made by Congress and the contributions of money and time by the 20 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. public-spirited citizens of California indicate a growing recognition of the fact that irrigation is more than a matter of ditches and acres. It is beginning to be realized that the arid West has some problems which are new to the people of this country; that there is being laid in the West the foundation of an industrial civilization different from that of the East and capable of better results, if wise laws and just policies shall prevail. It is a civilization which requires that every farmer shall be a thinker as well as a worker, and in which the value of the home depends more on institutions than on either a fertile soil or ample water supply. No State illustrates these truths more clearly than California. It is the most instruc- tive field for the prosecution of these investigations in the United States, because in no other State have water and land so great a value, and because in no other State are the evils and abuses of imperfect and inadequate legislation so clearly manifest. REFORM OF WATER LAWS A STATE MATTER. An impression seems to prevail in the minds of some of those interested that this investigation is destined to result in a national law for the estab- lishment of water rig-lits which would overturn' or unsettle all existinij ones. This, as will be seen from the conclusions of the special agents in chai'ge, is not regarded as either possible or desirable, and it is certainly not the present or ulterior purpose of anyone connected with the irrigaticm investi- gations of the Department of Agriculture. Rights to water are based on State laws or State customs. There is no reason to believe they will be overturned except with the sanction of those most concerned, and when there is a desire for reform or change no legislative agency can respond so quickly and effectively as that of the State. The object of this investi- gation, and more broadly of the kindred ones carried on by the Depart- ment of Agriculture, is to furnish the facts needed as a basis for correct conclusions and safe legislation. Since, therefore, the power to act and responsibility for action rests with those directly concerned, and since action will not follow the recom- mendations of this report unless they commend themselves as just and timely, those connected with this investigation have felt that the greatest service they could render would be to state their views candidly as they have gathered and presented the facts impartially. THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. The investigation has been carried on by eight students of imgation of wide experience and recognized ability, each of whom, with his assistants, has gathered the available facts relative to the character, number, and value SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION. 21 of water rights on the sti*eam or streams, and the methods employed in the distribution and use of the water supply included within his particular field. To obtain these facts they searched through many thousand pages of miscellaneous records to find out how much water was claimed, and the pur- poses for which it was claimed; they overhauled the court dockets to learn what litigation had determined regarding the nature of rights to water and the awards decreed to the different appropriators. Their field investigations included measurements of the flow of streams, size and location of ditches, and the areas of land irrigated, so that their reports show the actual use of water by farmers, and over against it the decreed and claimed volumes of appropriations. Taken together these reports present the imgation situa- tion in California in a concrete form. While the lessons drawn are based on researches in restricted areas, they apply with equal force to the entire State, because the streams studied are typical ones. Nor are these reports of value to California alone. The principles which should govern the owner- ship and distribution of rivers are universal in their application, and the experience of irrigators in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys is not unlike that of irrigators in other States where similar conditions pi'evail. DUTY or INVESTIGATORS. The situation demands that those in charge of these studies should be more than reporters. It is their province to interpret the facts gathered and state fearlessly the views held on each important issue involved. It is not expected that their opinions or the measures reconnnended for adoption will be approved by all. For a half century development has gone on without direction or public control. Every appropriator of water has been left free to claim what he pleased, and as a result there are about as many views regarding the nature of a water right as there are users of the water. Enter- prises have been organized on conflicting theories, so that it is now impossi- ble to secure any adjustment which will not aff'ect some one injuriou.sly. This renders it all the more important that those who attemj)t to unravel these complications should not only study them with open minds, but should state their conclusions without restraint. This privilege will be exei'cised in this introduction by the writer in giving his personal experiences and impressions, as well as of presenting the conclusions reached by reading the reports of his associates. Some of the Aaews herein expressed are known to be opposed to those of gentlemen whose judgment is held in high regard; but no one ought to object to a candid, temperate statement of convictions, reached after much study and expressed with a desire of pi-omoting the State's development. 22 IRKIGATION INVESTIGATIOKS IN CALIFORNIA. PLAN OF THE WORK. The names of the experts in charge of these investigations and the location of their districts are given on the map of the State, on page 32. Their reports follow, in geographical order, beginning in the north and ending with the most southerly stream studied. In order to define the limits of the inquiry and secure unifoi-mity in the discussion, a letter of instruction was prepared which outlined the field to be covered. This letter was based largely upon a petition of some of the re^ji'esentative citizens of California, addressed to Dr. A. 0. True, Director of the Office of p]xperiment Stations, and as this investigation really took its form from its statements, the petition, with an extract from the instructions, are both included: To Dr. A. C. True, Director, Office of Experiment Statiotm, U. S. Department of Agriculture: The undersigned earnestly desire that Mr. Elwood Mead be detailed by the Department to conduct a series of irrigation investigations in Cahfornia, and trust that you may feel justified in forwarding this request to the honorable Secretary of Agriculture with your approval. We have, of course, ascertained that the proposed detail will not be contrary to Mr. Mead's inclination or his judgment. We respectfully submit that nowhere in America are there irrigation problems more important, more intricate, or more pressing than in California. Neither are there any whose study would be more greatly instructive. We can offer, we presume, examples of every form of evil which can be found in Anglo-Saxon dealings with water in arid and semiarid districts. Great sums have teen lost in irrigation enterprises. Still greater sums are endangered. Water titles are uncertain. The litigation is appalling. Among the things necessary to be known before we can hope for well-considered legislation upon the conservation and distribution of our waters are the following: First. The amount of water in the streams. Second. The duty of water in the different irrigation basins. Third. The claims iipon the water, collated by streams and not by counties as now. Fourth. The nature of water-right titles. Fifth. The adjudicated claims upon the waters. Sixth. The lands now irrigated and susceptible of irrigation. Seventh. The possible increase of water for beneficial use by storage in each system. Eighth. The extent to which the irrigable area can be increased by better methods of distribution and use.' ^ 'Signed by E. J. Wickson, acting director University of California Experiment Station; J. A. Filcher, manager State board of trade; William Thomas; David Starr Jordan, president Leland Stanford Junior University; E. B. Pond, president San Francisco Savings Union; William Alvord, president Bank of California; Charles H. Gilbert, vice-president California Academy of Sciences; Marsden Manson; T. A. Kirkpatrick, vice-president P. C. M. M. D. Company; E. E. Patten; Grant S. Taggart; Frank Soule, |)rofe.ssor of civil engineering. University of California; Julius Kahn; Victor H. Metcalf ; (iernian Savings and Loan Society, by B. A. Becker, president; E. J. Le Breton, president French Savings Bank of San Francisco; California Safe Deposit and Trust Company; W. E. Brown, vice- president Crocker- Wool worth National Bank; Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, by Robert J. Tobin, secretary; M. H. de Young, San Francisco Chronicle; J. M. Gleaves, president California Water and Forest Society; David M. tie Long, manager Nevada and Monetta placer mines; R. H. Goodwin, United States deputy mineralogical surveyor; Frank W. Smith; Ernst A. Denicke, president Germania Trust Company; C. E. Grunsky, civil engineer; George C. Perkihs; Andrew W. Kiddie, United States deputy mineralogical surveyor. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION. 23 Instructions to special agents and experts of the United States Department of Agriculture, ?« the investigations relating to irrigation in California. Gentlemen: The study of the irrigation laws, customs, and conditions of California, in which your services have been secured, is the most comprehensive investigation of these questions yet undertaken in this country. This gives to the facts you are to gather and the reports and conclusions based thereon an exceptional interest. What you will do in California is being done in other States, and for the purpose of comparing results it is desirable, as far as may be, that all these investigations shall pursue the .same general plan, discuss the same general problems, and follow the same order in their treatment. Because of this, and because each of you will act independently in the collection of data and in formulating your conclusions, it is neces.sary that there be a preliminary understanding regarding both the nature of the subjects to be dealt with, and the general form of your reports thereon. As an aid to such understanding and concert of action, the following suggestions are submitted: PL.\N OF WORK. On the stream and its tributaries embraced in your field of investigation endeavor to secure all of the facts showing the operation of the present irrigation system. This to include: First. Abstracts of the records of claims to water, character of those records, including the number of claims, total volume claimed, place where recorded, and the ease or difficulty with which the validity of any claim can be determined. Second. Rights to water for other purposes than irrigation, viz, mining, power, and domestic use. Third. The methods by which the amount and character of water rights are determined, accessi- bility, and completeness of the record showing the nature of the established rights. Fourth. Character of litigation over water rights, its cost, the causes therefor, it« influence on irrigation development, and the principles established by decisions rendered in cases arising on the stream being studied. Fifth. Rights for storage and underground waters, how acquired, and how they are affected by rights to the surface flow of streams, and how the use of underground waters influences the stream's discharge. Sixth. Nature of an appropriation of water. Who is regarded as the appropriator — the ditch builder, the owner of the land on which water is used, or is the land itself the appropriator? What is the measure of its amount, the size of the claim, the capacity of the ditch, or the area irrigated? FIELD INVESTIGATIONS. Seventh. The collection of the data showing discharge of stream, or measurement of its discharge where no such data can be had. Study of volume of return or seepage water and its availability for being again diverted, and its influence on the value of irrigators' rights. Eighth. Size, numter, location, and capacity of ditches and other distributing works established, and the duty of water obtained. Ninth. Collection of data showing how water is divided among different ditches from the same stream, how it is distributed among users. Nature of water-right contracts between canal owners and water users, including facts showing what contracts have proven satisfactory, and what ones have given rise to controversy, with the reason therefor. Collection of information showing the value of water for irrigation as shown by the rates paid for its delivery, the methods by which these rates are established, and *heir justice or objectionable features. REPORTS. Tenth. While the facts gathered will largely modify the nature of their presentation, it will greatly aid those who read your conclusions if they deal with the same issues and in the same order. The following scheme is suggested: (a) The foundation of any system of administrative laws is the method of establishing rights to the stream. In your discussion of the results in California, the first question to be considered is whether or not the present method of filing and recording claims to water is satisfactory. If not, what should take its place? ^ (6) Is the present method of adjudicating rights satisfactory? If not, what should replace it? 24 IBRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. (c) The present law provides for the appropriation of water for sale, rental, or distribution. Does it provide for its direct appropriation by the user without tlie intervention of the seller, renter, or distributor? Is there any method l)y which the owner of a tract of land can acquire directly from the public a right to the water which reclaims that land, as he can now obtain title to the public land itself by means of the desert or homestead laws? If not, should there be legislation to provide for this? (d) Is the present system of stream control or lack of it, and the dividing of water between the different ditches which divert the common supply satisfactory? If not, what form of administration or control should take its place? (e) Should there be a State engineer; and if so, what should be his duties? (/) Should there be a central office of record of claims or titles to water in place of the present separate county records, and what supervision or control should be exercised over rights to be acquired hereafter? (g) What steps should be taken to secure the fullest conservation and use of water which now runs to waste? The discussion of this question to include State or national control and aid, the legislation needed to define rights to stored water, and to determine who is entitled to the water thus stored. It is understood that this outline will not touch all of the complex and imjiortant problems which your investigations will disclose and with which your reports will have to deal. It is, however, believed to state some of the leading ones with which legislators and users of water are now confronted, not only in California, but in every other Commonwealth. Sincerely yours, Elwood Mead, Irrigation Expert in Cliarge. Within the limits thus fixed each of the gentlemen in cliarge of these investigations has been a law to himself He has gathered his facts and stated his conclusions without advice or direction from any source. This has resulted in some repetitions which might otherwise have been avoided, but this defect is thought to be outweighed by the advantage gained from a complete and unmodified statement of the views of each of these gentlemen. REASONS FOB BESTRICTING DISCUSSION OF WATER-BIGHT PBOBLEMS TO IRRIGATION. While this investigation deals primarily with the problems of irrigated agriculture, the fact is not lost sight of that other important industries have a common interest with irrigation in securing laws which will provide for the final establishment of titles to the water used and protect these titles in time of scarcity. At present it is notorious that anyone attempting to utilize the streams of California for any purpose has to add to the ordinary or legitimate risks and expenses of his enterprise a large and continuing outlay for litigation to maintain his right to water. A reform which will render this needless will promote development in other directions as nuich as in agriculture. A just system of laws will take into account the needs of all interests. This report is restricted to a consideration of the riglits and needs of the irrigator because the Congressional appropriation limits the investigation to irrigation, but this must not imply that other rights are not regarded as important or not entitled to impartial recognition. Exactly the reverse is true. U. S. Dept. of Agr , Bui. 100, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrigation Investigations. Plate III. PRESEN.T AND FUTURE OF IRRIGATION. 25 THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA. It is well to understand at the outset just what irrigation is doing for California and what it can be made to do; how much of the State's pros- perity now comes from it and to what extent it will promote future growth. In the States wholly arid this is a si-mple matter, because there is a clearly drawn line which separates the valuable cultivated land from the worthless desert, and the difference between the two is wholly due to in-igation. In much of Cahfornia this is not the case. A farmer may irrigate his garden and leave his wheat field to the rain. The foi-est of windmills around Stockton marks the region of mai-ket gardens; beyond these the land is still cultivated, but it is watered, if at all, from the clouds and not by in-igation. On the road from Sacramento to Folsom one passes a constant succession of vineyards and orchards, some irrigated, some not, yet both appear flourishing. In the Santa Clara Valley irrigation did not precede the planting of orchards, but is now slowly being adopted as they come into full bearing. Nevertheless, no State has gained more from the use of rivers in irrigation than California or has more at stake in the extension of this use. The following facts show only in part the reasons for this : IRRIGATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. In order to realize what irrigation has accomplished in California one must go to the southern part of the State where land, not worth 85 an acre in its original condition, has sold when iirigated and planted to orange trees for Si, 700 an acre; where valleys, which were originally deserts or sand and cactus, producing nothing more valuable than stunted grass, and where a whole township would not keep a settler and his family from starving to death if compelled to cultivate it in its natural state, have been transformed into the highest priced and most productive agricultural lands in this coun- trv; where water, which formerly ran unused to the ocean, is worth for irrigation alone 10 cents per 1,000 gallons; where 83.50 an inch, and 40 cents an inch extra for its carriage, was paid last year for a twenty-four hours' flow. So valuable is water that 850,000 was recently paid for a per- petual right to 50 inches. This was at wholesale; in small quantities it has sold for more money. The water used last year in the irrigation of 10 acres of orange land cost more than would be required to purchase an equal acreage of the best farming lands of Iowa. Before streams were diverted and used by irrigators they had no value, and the land on their margin had little. Since this use began the citrus-fruit lands of southern California have brought net annual returns of 8200 to 8450 an acre, and this year's crop will be worth approximately 26 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. §10,000,000,' the whole making a record of increase in productive capacity and a creation of agricultural wealth not surpassed in this or any other countrv. The rise in land values and the value of the crops grown are not, however, the chief benefits which irrigation has conferred on southern California. A far larger gain has come from the beautiful landscapes created in these deserts by the oases of fruit and foliage, which, Avith the matchless healthfulness and charm of the climate, have made this section the resort of health and pleasure seekers from all parts of the globe. The climate alone would not have accomplished this. Limited trains on the transcon- tinental railways from the East would not be crowded if Pasadena looked now as it did when first viewed by the mission fathers, and before they began at San Diego the work which makes this valley now so justly famous. The cities of Los Angeles, Redlands, and San Diego are just as much cre- ations of irrigation as the orange groves which surround them. Whatever may be true of the remainder of the State there is no question that southern California's present prosperity and its future growth depend largely on the distribution and use of its water supplv. IRRIGATION IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. Southern California has demonstrated the value of irrigation. Northern California illustrates its latent possibilities. When one considers the vast area of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, with a surface shaped by nature for the easy spreading of water, with a soil of great fertility and a marvelous climate, there is no doubt that it is to be during the twentieth century a great field of activity, not of the farmer alone, but the engineer, the lawyer, and the student of social and economic questions. The available water supply of this valley ought to make it the Egypt of the Western Hemisphere. A seven years' record of the flow of Sacra- mento Eiver, measured above the confluence of this stream with the San Joaquin,'' shows that during that period 181,553,808 acre-feet of water ran ' Letter from Frank Wiggins, secretary Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. ' The summary given below shows the total discharge of Sacramento River, at Collinsville, for the seven years from 1878 to 1885, inclusive. It is taken from "Physical dat^a and statistics of California," Report of William Ham. Hall, State engineer, 1886: Flow, in Hcrc- feet. 187S-7<» 26,414,302 lK7!)-80 32,205,831 18S0-S1 31, 922, 7.50 1881-82 25,503,305 1882-83 17,633,585 1883-84 29,947,038 1884-85 17,926,997 Mean for the seven years 25,936,258 V PRESENT AND FUTURE OF IRRIGATION. 27 into San Francisco Bay. The mean annual discharge' for these years was nearly 26,000,000 acre-feet. On a duty of water of 2 acre-feet per acre, this would irrigate 13,000,000 acres. It is doubtful, however, if it will require 2 acre-feet of water t(i irrigate an acre of land in Sacramento Valley. As near as can be determined, the irrigable area of the valley is less than 13,000,000 acres — probably somewhere between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 acres. Hence the water which runs to waste from the Sacramento Valley, if it could be made available, would more than suffice to in-igate every acre that can be reached by canals from the river or from its tributaries. An effort was made to secure the full discharge of San Joaquin River, but without success. From the records of the gagings made on the headwaters and on a number of its tributaries, it seems probable that the total flow of this stream is ajij^roxiraately one-third that of the Sacramento, enough certainly, if conserved and economically vised, to irrigate several million acres of land. Not all this water can be used. A large percentage will always run to waste during the winter months; but storage will do much to lessen this, a wise forest policy will aid, and winter irrigation will supplement both. The first step, however, is to use that which now escapes in the summer. The doing of this has hardly begun. In Utah and Colo- rado a stream like the Sacramento running practically to waste in August would be regarded as next to a crime. Even tlie ditches already built to divert its flow remain empty. This is not because water for iirigation lacks value. The yearly rental for water supplied by the Soutli Yuba Water Company is $45 an inch. It is evidently worth this much to irriga- tors, or the price would not be paid. How many acres an inch will in-igate is not known, as reports vary from 3 to 10 acres. Assuming the average to be 5 acres, the water thus used on an acre is worth §9. The land irrigated from the North Fork Ditch, on American River, is worth more than twice as much as the adjacent nonii-rigated land. The water from tliis canal rents for 84 an acre for citrus fraits and S3 an acre for deciduous fruits, with an added charge of 81 an acre for maintaining the irrigation system. The annual water rental for lands seeded to alfalfa is 83 an acre; tliat for small grain 81 an acre, with, as before, 81 an acre added for maintaining the canal and distributing works. The orange crop from one 10-acre tract in this colony sold last year for over 87,000. There was expended for labor in its cultivation 82,000, and the land itself is valued at 8350 an acre. Comparing the financial returns, the number of men employed, the increased productiveness and value of land where irrigated, witli the scanty pojjulation, diminished fertility, nonresident landlordism, 28 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. and small yield of wheat where irrig-ation is not practiced, leaves no question as to what is to be the ultimate use of these rivers. These are not isolated or exceptional examples. Several others equally significant came under my personal notice, while one crop of citrus fruits brought the surprising sum of Si, 800 an acre. DIVERSIFIED EABMING UNDER IRRIGATION. One of the needs of northern California is more diversified farmino-. Rotation of crops is one of the most effective means of preserving the fer- tility of the soil. This result is now secured in fruit growing by the use of fertilizers, but there is a limit to the profitable extension of the acreage devoted to fruits. There is, however, no limit to the profitable extension of agriculture, which makes each home largely self-supporting, where each farmer grows nearly everything he consumes, where his farm supplies him with his poultry, butter, eggs, and meat, where he gi'ows his own hay and has his own pasture and his own orchard and garden. Every acre seeded to alfalfa is a double gain to the State. It stoj^s the impoverishment of the soil and is another step toward making the State wholly independent of the out- side world. More than this, it replaces unprofitable cultivation with a kind which pays. How well it pays was shown by numerous reported yields of 11 tons of alfalfa hay per acre, worth S5 per ton. The report of Professor Soul^ states that water rates in the San Joaquin Valley range from S2 to S6 per acre where these rates are fixed by sujjer- visors, and are being contested. This, on a duty of 5 acres to the inch, would mean a value of SIO to $25 per inch. Wasted water is therefore wasted, wealth. The loss to the State in productive capacity can scarcely be measured, but the following comparisons with other irrigated countries will show something of its character. Within a radius of 5 miles in the Sacramento Valley I saw every product of the temperate and semitropical zones which I could call to mind. Apples and oranges grew side b}' side, as did oak and almond trees. There were olives from the South and cherries from the North. A date palm seemed equally at home with an alfalfa meadow ; figs and tokay grapes Avere aj^par- ently as much in their element as the fields of wheat and barley or the rows of Indian com, some of the stalks of which measured 15 feet in height. All of these things could have been grown on a single acre, and doubtless have been. It is a sinful waste of opportunities to continue using thousands of acres of this land to grow wheat, which steadily impoverishes the soil and robs the pockets of its owners. The in-igable lands of California ai-e no U. S. Depl of Agr., Bu'. 100, Office of Expt. Stations, Irrigation Investigations Plate IV. U. S. Oept. of Agr., Bui. 100, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrigation Investigat ons. Plate V. OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 29 place foi" bonanza farms. They are far better suited to the ci-eation of 10 and 20 acre homes. CAIilFOKNIA, EGYPT, AND ITALY COMPARED. There are more acres of iirigable land in the San Joaquin Valley than are now watered in Egypt from the Nile, where agriculture alone supports over 5,000,000 people, maintains a costly government, and pays the interest on a national debt half as large as that of the United States. The area which can be irrigated from the Sacramento is about equal to that irrigated in Italy from the Po. The population of the California Valley is about 20 people to the square mile. In the Italian Valley it is nearly 300 people to the square mile. The irrigated lands along the Nile support 543 persons to the squai'e mile. Such a settlement of the Sacramento Valley would more than double the present population of the State. It is believed that an irrigated square mile in this valley will support as many people in comfort as now live on an equal area in either of the other districts referred to because neither of these surpasses California in the diversity or value of its products or the e.xcellence of its markets. OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. In September last I saw a part of the Sacramento Valley in its most unlovely aspect. One of the ti'ips taken was from Chico to Willows, two towns about 30 miles apart, but the road followed made the distance trav- eled about 35 miles. We crossed what is potentially one of the most fertile and pi'omising agricultural districts on tliis continent. For scores of miles the land rises by a gentle and uniform slope from the Sacramento River toward the foothills on either side. Water would flow over every acre of the country traversed without requiring much labor in its dii'ection or skill in the location of lateral ditches. The plains of Lombardy are not better suited to irrigation, nor the soil of the Nile delta more fertile than were these lands originallv. For a half century they have been devoted to the unremitting production of cereal crops. Each season the crop has been harvested, the grain shipped away, and the straw burned, and nothing done to replace the plant food withdrawn. A more exhaustive form of agriculture can not be imagined. Although this siu'prising drain has gone on for fifty years, it can not continue forever. Last year's crop was a failure, and fail- ures will follow in rapid succession hereafter if a change in methods is not soon made. It required only ten years of continuous grain farming at Greeley, Colo., to reduce the average yield from -lO bushels to 12 bushels of ' 30 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. wlieat per acre, and Greeley is one of the most prosperous farming districts in the West. Less than ten years of scientific rotation of crops restored its original fertility and production. Diversified farming would have equally desirable results in this section of California, but rotation of crops is not pos- sible with rahifall alone. The moisture is neither sufficient in amount nor rightly distributed to permit of this. In 1897, no rain fell at Chico in July and August, and the total rainfall from May to October Avas less than 1 inch. In 1898, no rain fell in either Jiuie, July, or August. In 1899, no rain fell in July or September, and only 0.12 of an inch in August. At Willows, in 1897, no rain fell in either July, August, or September; in 1898, none in July or August; and in 1899 there was again a three-montlis' period without sensible precipitation. The absence of rainfall during the harvest period is one of the great advantages of California where the needed moisture can be supplied by in-igation. It is likewise one of the greatest obstacles to diversi- fied agriculture where dependence is had on rainfall alone. The natural opportunities of the district traversed are equal to if not greater than those of tlie countr}' surrounding Riverside, Cal., which has been appropriateh' desig- nated as the "Garden Spot of America," but a difference in agricultural ideas has produced a corresponding difference in conditions. In the suburbs of both Chico and Willows there were seen attractive homes surrounded bv orchards and gardens, but 5 miles would cover the distance required to get beyond the town limits of either place. In the remaining 30 miles only six houses were passed and surrounding these were neither orchard.s nor gardens. The distressing effects of a two-months' drought and the absence of water to mitigate its influence were only too manifest. These homes were a signal illustration of the truth that a world without turf is a dreary desert. Instead of the refreshing green of an irrigated district, or of a country where there are summer rains, eveiything was parched, dusty, and lifeless. Practically all of the land Avas being prepared for small grain. Less than 1 00 'acres of alfalfa Avere seen and this looked as though it Avas prepared to surrender the unequal struggle. One-third of the land had been summer falloAved, but nuich of it was in no condition to be benefited, as the clods had neA^er been pulverized and the fertility of the soil Avas being burned out by the heat and dryness of the summer sun. The region A'isited is one of bonanza farms, the road traA-ersed crossing one of 40,000 acres. A mortgage Avas the most important result of Avheat growing in recent years, and the land is noAv being sold to satisfy the debts thus created. The boundaries of other large estates Avere pointed out whose owners were historic figures in the early days of California. In nearly OBSTACLES TO DEVKLOPMENT. 31 every instance their estates have passed out of their hands and out of the possession of their descendants and are now owned by banks or capitahsts in San Francisco, having been taken in paj'inent of loans made to meet the losses incurred in growing small grain. Nor has the change of ownership affected the general result. The present owners of these properties will not rent them to tenants who can not give a satisfactory hank reference, experi- ence having shown this to be a needed i)recaution. Although ecpiipped with teams and machinery and understanding the California climate and Cali- fornia agriculture, many of these tenants have at the end of the year walked out of the valley, leaving both croji and equipment to pay the debts created hx their failure. CALIFOBNIA AND UTAH COMPARED. In the 35 miles traversed tliere were only two schoolhouses. Attending these schools was only one child whose parents owned the land on which they lived. The other pupils were the children of foremen and tenants. The county superintendent told me that at these two schools there were only fifteen children. These conditions of alien landlordism, tenant farming, iinoccnpied homes and scanty population, in a country so rich in possibilities, show a vital economic defect in methods. The situation here was in such striking contrast with what had been seen in traveling through an irrigated valley in Utah the month before that the differeiice seems worthy of statement. In a distance of 15 miles, along Cottonwood Creek, Utah, there was not a farm of over 30 acres. The houses and barns on these little farms indicated more comfort and thrift than those of the Sacra- mento Valley, where the farms are ten times as large. The average popu- lation of the Utah district was over 300 people to the square mile; the district traversed in California has less than 10 people to the square mile. The Utah lands range in value from S50 to 8150 an acre: the lands of the Glenn estate in the Sacramento Valle}- are heing offered for sale from SlO to $40 an acre. Every natural advantage is in favor of California; but the Utah district is imgated, the other is not. OPPOSITION TO IRRIGATION. The benefits of irrigation seemed so obviovis and the necessity for it so great that its absence was at first attributed to lack of opportunity. This, however, is not the case. In repeated interviews with leading citizens of this section it was manifest that the principal reason the land is not irrigated is because of the prejudice against irrigation. The first gentleman talked 32 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. with in Cliico said that img-ation was not needed for either fruit or grain growing. The second said it would bring malaria and attendant ills and destroy the health of the valley. The owner of an in-igation canal said that while he could irrigate, he did so only in a desultory fashion, and did not regard it as beneficial. What I leanied of grain growing and what I saw of the fruit trees and the fruit being gathered did not tend to confir)ii these opinions. While it would be possible to make such wasteful use of water as to injure health, the experience of southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico, where the summers are hotter than in the Sacramento Vallev, shows that this result does not follow the careful use of water. The causes for the opposition to irrigation must be looked for elsewhere. They have in part been explained. (Others are not obscure. THE DESIRE FOB LARGE ENTERPRISES. The bonanza wlieat farm and the bonanza orchard were in accord Avith the spirit which from the first has dominated the industries of California. It is a State of vast enterprises. Men pride themselves on great under- takings and on doing whatever they undertake on a large scale. Wheat can be grown in this way. The man Avith capacity for organization can look after the growing of 10,000 acres of wlieat as easily as 10 acres. It is an industry freed from detail. There is a period of seed time and harvest, and long intervals of complete freedom. It has none of the petty incidents which go with the management of a farm where there are chickens and pigs, where cows are to be milked, and butter and eggs marketed, where each month has its duties, and where there is no time when something does not need attention. This sort of farming- comes with high-priced land and a dense population, but it does not appeal to the imagination like the plowing of fields so large that turning a single furro\v requires a day's journey, or the cultivation of the ground with steam plows and haiTows which require five-mule teams to operate them. The cutting, thrashing, and sacking of grain at a single ojjeration is spectacular as well as eff"ective. In this respect it resembles the range cattle business in its best days. The owner of a i-ange herd was more than a money-maker, he was practically monarch of all he surveyed. The cowboy on horseback was an aristocrat; the irri- gator on foot, working through the hot summer days in the nuid of irrigated fields, was a groveling wretch. In cowboy land the in-igation ditch has always been regarded with disfavor because it is the badge and symbol of a despised occup.ition. The same feeling, but in a less degree, has ])revailed in the wlieat-growiiig districts of California, and for much the same reason. USDEPTOF AGR. BULIOO OFFICE OF EXPT. STATIONS STATE OF CALIFOKN^IA SHOWINU THE AR£AS INCLUDED IN INVESTIGATI05SAND LOCATION OK IRRIGATED AND PARTLV tRRIGATED LANDS. Scaile of niil«8 LEGEND Agricultural Land not Requiring Irrigation Land Continuously Irrigated I I ^ Land Partially or Occasionally Irrigated I ! Grain and Fruit Lands t I Nonairicultural Land 1. District investi^aUd by Wm. E. Smythe 2. Marsden Manson 3. J.M.Wilson 4v Frank Soule" 5. C.E.Grunsky 6. Chas.D. Marx 7. Edward M. Boggs 8. Jas. D. Schuyler 9. Jas. D. Schuyler SAK FRAITCTSCO H .\fo.vo \ ^' \ \, \ \ LAKE \ \ \ \ M**:?^*' ^ ry A U OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 83 CONTROVERSIES OVER DISTRICT ENTERPRISES. Another reason for the prejudice agamst irrig-ation in CaHfornia has been the zeal of its advocates and the mistakes made because of their enthusia.sm. If, in connection with the Wright act, there could have been some public control of development which would have restricted the works undertaken to immediate necessities and have deferred the construction of large and costly works until the feasibility and the best methods of construction could have been fully determined, there is little doubt that the area under irrigation in California to-day would be far greater than it is. An illustra- tion of the danger of making haste too rapidly was seen on the road between Chico and Willows. Tlie Central Canal, or what would have been a canal if there had been any water in it, was several times crossed dhring this ride. It was one of the projects inaugurated under the Wright district law and belongs to the central irrigation district. It was planned to irrigate about 156,000 acres, and estimated to cost S750,000. The canal was begun in the face of active and influential opposition and has been involved in litigation from the outset. Five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars was expended before work was stopped. Unless the project is carried to com- pletion this large sum of money will be wholly lost, as no portion of the canal is being used or can be used in its present condition. Outside of hostile public opinion there was no reason why this canal should not have been: a success. The physical obstacles were "not serious; there is an abundance of water, and the lands covered by the canal need irrigation and are well adapted to the easy and efficient distribution of water. That the canal will ultimately be completed seems inevitable, because the increase in value and productive wealth of the land when watered will warrant this The opposition was due in part to the size and cost of the canal. The project was too large. Land- owners were frightened at the heavy preliminary outlay. If, instead of this immense canal, works had been begun in a small way with a ditch large enough to water 5,000 acres, and its extension deferred until the profits of irrigation had been demonstrated, the central district would, in my opinion, have been a success. Opposition to the enterprise on the scale undertaken was not wholly unreasonable. Irrigation meant a complete change in agri- cuhural methods. It involved either the breaking up of the large estates, or an immense outlay on the part of their owners to prepare the land for being watered. Many of these owners were not financially able to under- take the latter. The conditions were all favorable to a small project and against a lai-ge one. But the fight against this particular project has led 23866— No. 100—01 3 34 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. many to oppose irrigation in any form. Opposition to tlie Wright law has caused many to oppose all laws. It is to be hoped that this prejudice and antagonism will soon be ended. A united sentiment is one of the requisites to success. OBSTACIjES presented by INADEaUATE WATER LAWS. Many of those who desire to see the irrigated area extended say they see no way to accomplish it. At Chico it was stated that all the water of that section was now owned; that the Bidwell estate owned Chico Creek; that the Stanford estate owned Butte Creek; that some other estate, whose name has been forgotten, owned Rock Creek, and that any extended use of the Sacramento River would give rise to litigation with the navigation interests. To the inquiry as to how these estates acquired the ownership of the streams named, reply was made that no one understood exactly how a title was established. The owners of these estates were among the first settlers and acquired the rights to water when not much attention was paid to such matters. All those talked with accepted this ownership as estab- lished, and were deterred by it from attempting to utilize these streams, where otherwise they would have done so. Because of this the waters of Chico Creek were running to waste, nothing was being done with Butte Creek, and the greater part of Rock Creek was sinking in the sands. Mean- while the census for 1900 shows that the jjopulation of Chico is less than it was ten years ago, that the population of Willows has decreased, and that outside of the irrigated territory there is stagnation in growth and waste of opportunity. These uncertain but sweeping assertions of speculative ownership of water and the hostility of water users to the recognition of the control this implies have given rise to antagonisms which must in some way be removed. The farmer fears that if he adopts irrigation he will become the serf of the canal company. The capitalist hesitates about irrigation investments for fear of contests with other canals and the reprisals which hostile public sentiment would make possible, because of the fact that the number of canal owners is few while the number of water users is large. The claim of speculative ownership of water and the recognition of this claim in some cases by the courts has been met by the law giving super- visors practically unrestricted power to fix rates. Neither speculative ownership nor unrestricted power over rates can continue without injury to the public, and both should give way to institutions of justice. The time has long passed when makeshift laws and temporary expedients should be OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 35 resorted to in dealing with this subject. There never was a time when doubtful or controverted policies should have been evaded by the law- makers and thi-ust on the courts for settlement. There is as great need for specially qualified officers to determine the amount of the water supply and regulate its distiibution as there is to survey the public land and prepare maps by which the different tracts can be identified. There is as gi'eat, if not greater, need of a bureau to supervise the establishment of titles to water as there is for land offices to manage the disposal of public land. Wh)' have we recognized the need of one and ignored the other? The answer is to be found in the inheiited jurisprudence and prejudice of our race, which for centuries has regarded water as something to be got rid of rather than a resource to be transferred and measured and stored, and finallv absorbed in use. That is the status of water in California, where sti-eams are of greater actual value than all the gold in the hills or the oil in the valleys. The discovery of gold in California and the use of water in ii-rigation brought the people of that State face to face with two new issues. One of these was the enactment of laws for the control and use of the land which contained placer gold; the other was the creation of laws and customs for the orderh- determination of ownership of streams and for their distribution. In their efforts at solving one of these problems, California achieved a satisfactory if not striking success. The code of mining laws provides for a final and definite determination of title to a particular tract of land. The steps through which this evolution was accomplished are of historic and economic interest. Thev beeran in a common agreement that a claim should embrace only the area a man could work, and this was fixed as the distance in each direction he could reach with a pick, and made the claim about 8 feet square. There was no attempt to establish ownership of the land itself; the right endured during occupation onl v. Wlien one individual ceased to work a claim, anvone else could relocate it and take possession. With increase of population and the employment of capital other measures were necessary, and a working code of laws was evolved to meet the changed conditions. This code of laws provided for notices of location, for the recording- of these notices, and a .simple procedure, before specially qualified officers, to prove compliance with the law, which proof is followed by the issuance by the Government of a patent to the claim which is as stable and certain an evidence of ownership as a patent to a homestead. This law limits the acres which can be filed on. It determines the shape of a full-sized claim and makes provision for properly qualified officers and engineers to carry out 36 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIB'ORNIA. the law. Hence every one knows, or can easily learn, how mining- rights are acquired and what is the legal status of any particular claim. The establishment of water laws began in the same manner. At first every user of a stream thought use the essential element, but little thought was given to the establishment of rights equivalent to ownership. When the gold was washed from claims, the ditch which sujDplied water was aban- doned with the claim, and the property right in the stream was probably not thought of further. As the use of streams extended and irrrigation and domestic uses were added to mining it became manifest that water rights were to have an enduring value, and provision was made for recording notices of the appropriation of streams. As time went on people began to give more and more attention to the legal forms by which rights to water were recorded, and to regard a compliance with these forms as not oiil};- of more importance in securing title than the actual use of the water, but as being the principal consideration in determining ownership. In the evolu- tion of the California water laws none of the safeguards which surround the placer-mining law were incorporated. It places no limit on the volume of water which can be appropriated, it does not make clear whether the extent of the right is to be fixed by the carrying capacity of the ditch or canal, or the needs of the land watered, or independent of either. It is ambiguous as to whether the appropriator owns the water or has only a usufructory right. What was done in effect was to throw open the record books of every county in the State to the entry of any sort of a claim against its most valued property which need or greed might encourage. The results on nine streams are outlined in the reports which follow. These reports do not, however, give an adequate impression of the existing situation. The original plan was to publish an abstract of all these claims. Such an abstract was prepared by a number of the observers. With only a line for each claim, the publication of this list would have doubled the size and cost of this report. Except to show how worse than useless is the law, the list has no value. It gives no indication of the existing or intended use of water. There are three consecutive claims to all the water of San Joaquin River, and the aggregate of all claims in California represents enough moisture to sub- merge the continent. The humor of the situation is shown in the reports of Mr. Boggs and Professor Soul^. The evil comes in the failure of the law to afford any adequate protection to those who comply with its provisions. Evil communications corrupt good manners and misleading laws pervert public opinion. Because the water laws of California provide for the legal record of notices which assert rights to all the water of streams men have OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 37 come to accept the private and even the speculative ownership of water as one of the natural, if not inevitable, incidents of its use in irrigation. It is only human nature for individuals or companies, after they have paid the recording fee for such notice and it has stood unchallenged on the public records for years, to believe they own the water claimed in the notice. The notices given below ^ are taken from the official records of appropriations from the San Joaquin River and tributaries as copied by Professor Soul^. The water records of California contain thousands of such statements. No matter what courts may declare or reformers urge, so long as the sort of procedure which the San Joaquin record illustrates is continued men who file claims will regard speculative ownership of water as authorized by the law of appropriation in California. In talking of this an intelligent, fair- minded ditch owner last year voiced the prevailing opinion in the following words: " I filed on this water, and it is mine to do with as I please. I can run it into a gopher hole if I want to. I can sell it, or rent it to my neighbors, or I can waste it in the sand, and neither the Government nor State has any right to object." The question before the. people of California is, "Is or is not this the doctrine of water ownership which ought to prevail? If not, what is to take its place?" No matter what policy is adopted, it ought to be definite and all rights made to conform to its conditions. Of the policy of doing nothing, deciding nothing, thei'e has been enough. Something more is now required. This is a comprehensive code of laws which will be as just and eff'ective as those of Italy, or Canada, or Wyoming, which will represent the knowledge of the twentieth century i-ather than a blind adherence to the conditions of fifty years ago. It is a significant fact that the best irrigation laws do not permit of the unrestricted filing of claims. In fact they do not permit water to be appropriated. Italy issues licenses to take water; other countries treat rights to use streams as franchises. In ' Know all men whom it may concern that I, , have this 8th day of October, 1877, appropriated all the water of the west and east forks of Willow Creek, together with the entire amount of water flowing down Willow Creek, and emptying into the north fork of the San Joaquin River, in Crane Valley * * * to be done by ditch and flume of 3 feet wide by 2 feet deep. Notice is hereby given that claim by priority of location, use, and appropriation the first right to the use of water running in the San Joaquin River for the purpose of irrigation, navigation, and supplying towns and villages with said water, and also for motive and mining purposes. Said use and appropriation to be exercised as circumstances may require, either by using said water as it natur- ally flows in said river, or diverting the same, or increasing its volume in such mode as may be deemed requisite. Notice. — I, , do this day locate, appropriate, and claim the water now flowing and hereafter to flow in Big Greek from a jwint at and above where this notice is posted on said stream, to the extent of 100,000 inches, measured under a 4-inch pressure. * * * I intend to divert said water by ditches of the capacity of said 100,000 inches and by flumes of the same capacity. 38 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. Wyoming anyone desiring to use water must obtain a permit to use it from the State. To have regulation precede the asserted individual own- ership or control has two advantages. It enables everyone to understand from the outset just what one's rights are and commits the Government to the protection of the rights officially indorsed. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SALE, RENTAL, OR DISTRIBUTION. It is the belief of the writer that rights to water should be for use only; that appi'opriations for irrigation purposes should not belong to either a canal company or an owner of land, but should attach to the land irrigated and be inseparable therefrom. Where this doctrine prevails, canals and ditches become, like railroads, great semipublic utilities, means of convey- ance of a public commodity, their owners entitled to adequate compensation for services rendered, but having no ownership in the property distributed. Believing this, the law which permits appropriations of water for sale, rental, or distribution is regarded as unwise and dangerous. It accomplishes no good result that the attachment of appi'opriations to the land irrigated would not promote. On the other hand, permitting individuals or corpora- tions to appropriate water which irrigators must have in order to live, gives rise to antagonisms and makes possible grave abuses, the nature of which is shown over and over again in the reports which follow and which has been characterized in the following striking statement made by William E. Sraythe : If we admit the theory that water flowing from the melting snows and gathered in lake and stream is a private commodity belonging to him who first appropriates it, regardless of the use for which he designs it, we have all the conditions for a hateful economic servitude. Next to bottling the air and sunshine no monopoly of natural resources would be fraught with more possibilities of abuse than the attempt to make merchandise of water in an arid land. The doctrine of private or speculative ownership of water has not thus far benefited those who have appropriated water to rent or sell. It has made them trustees or agents for users and thrust on them all the expense of fighting rival appropriators in the courts for control of the supply. It makes every user of water feel that he is the victim of an unjust discrimination because, while the appropriator gets the water from the stream as a free grant, he has to pay for the share he enjoys. The relative merits of laws which attach appropriations to tlie land and those which, like California, make the ditch or canal owner the appropriator is not a matter of theory or conjecture. In every country where rights attach to the land irrigators are prosperous and peace prevails. In countries where control of water and ownership of land are separated controversies and OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 39 abuses abound. There is no exception. The situation in Wyoming as con- trasted with that in California shows that the arid West is not destined to furnish one. If human experience has any vakie we ought to heed its lessons, and the following extracts from official reports dealing with this issue are so pertinent as to be worthy of insertion: A recognition of the danger of allowing water to be monopolized without regard to the land ha.« led a commission appointed to inquire into Californian irrigation to declare that "as a matter of public policy it is desirable that the land and water be joined never to l>e cut asunder; that the farmers should enjoy in jierpetuity the use of the water necessary for the irrigation of their respective lands; that when the land is sold the right to water shall also be sold with it, and that neither shall be sold sepa- rately.— Australian Report on American Irrigation. Italian experience, French experience, and Spanish experience all go to show that the interests to be studied in relation to irrigation schemes are so many and so various, and so intimately bound up with the public welfare, that .State control is imperatively necessary, and that for the protection of its citizens no monopoly can l)e permitted which would separate property in water from property in the land to which it is applied. — Fourth Progress Report, Royal Commission on Water Supply, Victoria, Australia. European experience shows * * * that where waters belonging to the State are farmed and relet by private individuals water rights are a constant source of gross injustice and endless litigation. The consequence of these interminable vexations is that the poorer or more peaceably disposed land- holder is obliged to sell his pos.sessions to a richer or more litigious proprietor, and the whole district gradually passes into the hands of a single holder. — G. P. Marsh, formerly United States minister to Italy. The ancient principles of common law applying to the use of natural streams, so wise and equi- table in a humid region, would, if applied to the arid region, practically prohibit the growth of its most im{X)rtant industries. Thus it is that a custom is springing up in the arid region which may or may not have color of authority in statutory or common law; on this I do not wish to express an opinion, but certain it is that water rights are practically being severed from the natural channels Cf the streams, and this must be done. In the change it is to be feared that water rights will in many cases be sepa- rated from all land rights as the system is now forming. If this fear is not groundless, to the extent that such a separation is secured water will become a property independent of the land, and this property will be gradually absorbed by a few. Monopolies of water will be secured, and the whole agriculture of the country will be tributary thereto — a condition of affairs which an American citizen having in view the interests of the largest number of people can not contemplate with favor. Practically in that country the right to water is acquired by priority of utilization, and this is as it should be from the necessities of the country. But two important qualifications are needed. The user right should attach to the land where used, not to the individual or company constructing the canals by which it is used. The right to the water should inhere in the land where it is used; the priority of usage should secure the right. But this needs some slight modification. A farmer settling on a small tract, to be redeemed by irrigation, should be given a reasonable length of time in which to secure his water right by utilization, that he may secure it by his own labor, either directly by con- structing the waterways himself or indirectly by cooperating with his neighbors in constructing systems of waterways. Without this provision there is little inducement for poor men to commence farming operations, and men of ready capital only will engage in such enterprises. * * * The right to use water should inhere in the land to be irrigated, and water rights should go with land titles. — Land of the Arid Region, by J. W. Powell. The European country which most nearly resembles California is southern Spain. The rainfall in Spain is less than that of California, and irrigation is indispensable. Spanish water laws are the outcome of a thou- sand years' experience, in which local customs widely different in character 40 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. linve long operated side by side in different districts of the same ])rovince. The small size and contiguity of these districts makes it certain that climate and soil have nothing to do with the difference in the prosperity observed among the farmers. The situation there resembles what would prevail in California if each county of the State had a different code of water laws and a different doctrine regarding water rights. There has been time enough to work out to a final result the influence of the different doctrines of water ownership. In Valencia, the most beautiful and prosperous section of Spain, irrigated agriculture dates back to the Moors. Water rights are founded on customs which are older than records. Water and land are inseparable. Every writer who has visited Valencia is of the opinion that the thrift, the skill, and the success shown by farmers comes from the peace and security which go with the control of both elements of production ill an arid region — water and land. In the same province the results of the separate ownership of water and land are as completel)^ manifest. In the district of Elche water was originally controlled by the landowners, but land and water were not made inseparable. Gradually water rights were bought up by outsiders. Now the farmer buys water from these owners of streams just as he does fertilizers. The water tolls have been raised, farmers impov- erished, and all progress and prosperity banished. In the province of Murcia water is attached to the land and farmers are prosperous. In Lorca land and water are separated, and the result, says a recent report, is "large profits for the water owner, poor farmers, and languishing agriculture." Which of these two policies does California propose to adhere to? The recognition of property rights in water and their separation from land can lead to but one result: Development of irrigation will be corporate and great aggregations of capital will control the water resources of the West. Thus far court decisions in California have been conflicting. As already stated, the policy adopted ought not to be chosen in the light of what is, but in the light of what ought to be. The experience of Europe shows that the ownership of water apart from land can not prevail without creating grave abuses, and, no matter what the trouble or cost of getting on a proper basis may be, it ought to be done. Experience in the arid States of this country has also shown that separate ownership of water and land results in contests and expensive lawsuits, while union of land and water greatly lessens these evils or ends them entirely. Hence it can not be public interest but private selfishness which rejects this doctrine. In Wyoming and Nebraska the true principle has already been adopted by the State boards of control and put into practice with the best results. OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 41 If it can be maintained and speedily extended to Califoi'nia, it will not only relieve this State of many existing complications but will put Iter img-ation system in accord with the best thought and experience of the time. These views are based on eighteen years' personal contact with users of water in States where ditch owners are the water owners and in States where water rights are inseparable from the land. The result of that experience shows that attaching water to land makes for peace ; attaching it to the ditch owner makes for war. So long as ditch owners are the appropriators they have to maintain a dual conflict. They must strive with other ditch owners for control of the stream and with water users over the quantity and price of the water delivered. On the other hand, where ditches are made earners of water and appropriations attached to the land, the expense of the struggle over a fair division of streams does not fall, as it does in Cali- fornia, solely on the owners of canals. It falls on the landowners, and it has not taken long in the States where users have to bear the cost and loss of an unfair division to end this expense and uncertainty by putting streams under State control. Where appropriations attach to the land ditch owners have no responsibility except to deliver what comes to the headgate. For this service they are entitled to fair compensation, and come neai'er receiving it than do the ditch and water owners of California, where rates are fixed by a tribunal and a procedure which makes the practical confiscation of investments more than a possibility. The doctrine of private ownership of water has not thus far in this countrj- worked to the benefit of the ditch owner. On the contrary, it has been the greatest evil with which he has had to contend. It has been a potent source of hostile public sentiment; it has led to retributive legislation, of which the laws for fixing water rates in California and Colorado are signal illustrations. What may be the oppor- tunities of this policy in the future as water becomes scarcer and more valuable it is impossible to say, but the dangers to ditch companies are fully as pronounced as are the possibilities of increased profit. Whatever views may be held regarding this matter, there is one thing about which there can be no dispute, and that is that the present uncertainty should be ended. So long as it continues California is in no condition to either solicit develop- ment by private capital or aid through State or national appropriations. Private control of streams is infinitely to be preferred to no control. Taking the most extreme view of speculative rights which would give to each of these recorded notices its face value, it would at least give investors a basis on which to build canals and extend the distribution of streams which now run to waste. On the other hand, if rights are. to be measured by actual 42 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. use, a knowledge of the quantity of water which now runs to the sea will serve as a guide to the opportunities for new and later appropriations. But so long as the nature of an appropriation is unsettled, so long will records of claims to water be a constant temptation to revive old projects and vitalize dead rights, with a resulting increase in litigation and controversy over streams. RrPARIAN BIGHTS. The perplexities of water users have been increased in California by the recognition of riparian rights, which g-ive to any landowner along the margin of a stream the right to have its water flow past his land unimpaired in quality and undiminished in volume, or, at least, it renders uncertain the extent to which the volume may be diminished. This law is borrowed from rainy, foggy England, where it has a climatic fitness, because civilization in that country began with the draining of bogs and marshes, and the chief utility of rivers is to drain the w^ater off the land; but the doctrine has no place in a country where all the water streams carry should be diverted and used. It has been abrogated in all the States wholly within the arid region. Not only has the doctrine been abrogated in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico, but in the provinces of Victoria and New South Wales in Australia and the Northwest TeiTitories of Canada. All these provinces are colonies of Great Britain, where regard for tlie time-honored precedents of the mother country would supposedly be greater than in the United States. The abro- gation of this doctrine in these provinces was not made until after a careful study of irrigation in both Europe and America. The commissioner who made the investigation for the Canadian government, in a recent paper describing the Canadian code of irrigation laws, says: ^ "It recognizes as a foundation principle that only by the absolute repeal of the common law of riparian rights can the use of water for irrigation be successfully introduced." The same view is held in the States and Territories of this country where the doctrine has been set aside. The supreme court of Utah, in one of the earliest decisions on this question, used the following argument in support of its action: Kijiarian rights have never been recognized in this Territory, or in any State or Territory where irrigation is^ nfcessary, f(jr the appropriation of water for the purpose of irrigation is entirely and unavoidably in t(jnflict with the common-law doctrine of riparian proprietorship. If that had been ' J. S. Dennis, deputy commissioner of public works, Canada. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Experi- ment Stations Bui. 8(i. OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT. 43 recognized and applied in this Territory, it would still be a desert; for a man owning 10 acres of land on a stream of water capable of irrigating 1,000 acres of land or more near its mouth could prevent the settlement of all the land above him; for at common law the riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flow in quantity and quality past his land as it was wont to do when he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation. The legislature of this Territory has always ignored this claim of riparian proprietors, and the practice and usages of the inhabitants have never considered it applicable and have never regarded it. — Stowell r. Johnson, 26 Par. Rep., 290. In California no definite laws establishing' or abrogating the doctrine as applied to irrigation have been passed, and, as a result of this and of the further fact that the laws of the State are in conflict with the constitution, the supreme court of the State was compelled to practically enter the field of legislation when called upon to decide the case of Lux v. Haggin. (69 Cal., 255.) In this case Lux represented the riparian doctrine and Haggin the right to use streams in irrigation. It so happened that this case arose in a section of the State where crops can be gi'own without inigation, and so the recognition of the doctrine did not necessarily mean, as has been contended by the attorneys, that the settlers who were diverting water would have to abandon their homes if deprived of it, as they woiild have had to do in Utah and even in some sections of California. The fact that in a preceding case the same issues had been presented to the court and the doctrine of riparian rights set aside, and that in this case three out of seven judges believed it ought to be set aside, gives reason for an interesting conjecture as to what the result miglit have been if this historic case had involved orange lands where inngation is a necessity instead of wheat lands where it has not been so regarded. This misgiving as to whether a strict construction of the law required a decision so contrary to climatic necessities and which has proven so injurious to development does not in any way reflect upon the court. Its duty was to interpret the law as it existed regardless of consequences, and then to enforce its policy with equal disregard of results. This, however, is not what has happened. The decision was really a compromise. While it refuses the right to appropriate or divert water to iirigate nouriparian land, it allows it to be used on riparian land.^ The right to use streams accorded riparian propiietors has been so liberally construed in subse- quent decisions that it now resembles more nearly that claimed by appro- priatoi's than the riparian doctrine as originally understood. The economic import of the decision has not been what the counsel for appropriators ' "The right of the riparian proprietors to a reasonable use of the stream for the purposes of irriga- tion is recognizetl in many of the California cases, etc." (69 Cal., 409.) 44 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. or the tliree dissenting judges believed it would be, as is shown by the following extracts: The interests involved are of such magnitude, not only as between the parties themselves, but also as to thousands of others, and the result reached so disastrous to the defendants, so destructive to the vast and beneficial improvements made by them in good faith and in the belief that the same law as to those matters applied both to the State and Government lands in California, so disastrous to the people of a large jtart of California, and so destructive of all those great interests which have grown up under the irrigation system based upon the doctrine of appropriation to beneficial uses, that we firmly believe your honors will wish, even if in the end you feel compelled to adhere to the views already expressed, to do so only after you have permittee silbject to the rights, of the occupiers of land on the banks of rivers or lakes as hereinafter defined. (c) It shall be subject to the rights of the holders of licenses under this act. 2. The occupier of land on the bank of a river or lake shall have the right to use the water then being in the river or lake for domestic purposes, and for watering cattle or other stock, or for gardens not exceeding five acres in extent used in connection with a dwelling house, and it shall not be necessary for the occupier to apply for or obtain a license for any work used solely in resjiect of that right. 10. The license, if granted, shall in ev-ery case except Class IV be granted for a period not exceeding ten years, and shall (subject to the provisions of this act, with regard to the renewal of licenses and subject to such limitations and condition as the minister may think fit to make) be renewed by the minister from time to time on the application of the jierson holding the license, on the payment of a fee calculated in the manner and according to the scale set forth in the schedule to this act: Provided, That no renewal shall l)e for a longer j)eriod than ten years. 13. A license shall be deemed to be held by and shall ojierate and inure for the benefit of the lawful occupier for the time being of the land whereon the work is constructed or is proposed to be constructed. NEED OF ADEaUATE STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. Typical homes, gardens, and orange gi'oves of southern California are reproduced in illustrations of this report. They sliow the beautiful land- scapes which irrigation has created and is destined to create. With other illustrations they serve to show the skill and success with which water is used, and Mr. Schuyler's report gives some remarkable examples of efficiency in distribution and high duty. The men who are displaying such skill and industry deserve well of the State. They ought not to have to work in this manner and watch for the sheriff at the same time, or to be compelled to leave their work to seek the sheriff's aid. This they sometimes have to do in California. In reply to an inquiry as to how he obtained his share of a stream, one gentleman said he first got a court decree, and then shipped in two men from Arizona who were handv with a g'un. As a rule, irrig-ators and ditch owners are law abiding. Their dependence on the law and respect for it as a relief from worse conditions is often pathetic in the light of what it fails to do. Sometimes, however, exasperated and indignant appropriators from below make raids on the headgates and dams above, and scenes of lawlessness, loss, and violence are the result. The jjossibility of this is such that many iri*igation contracts stipulate that water will be furnished if its delivery is not prevented by "unlawful invasion or 54 IBRIGATION IKVE8TIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. iinwaiTanted interruption," which means that they will continue to divert the stream until some rival appropriator blows up their dam. This stipulation against probable violence has never been noticed in water contracts outside of California. In Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Idaho, there is no further need of resorting to force because an appeal can be made to the State by anyone who thinks his rights are being encroached upon. The water commissioner in these States takes the place of the gen- tlemen from Arizona or of the mob. The result is peace and good will among neighbors and order and economy in the use of water. California needs the water commissioner as much as either of these States. Once tried, his services will never be dispensed with. California also needs a law which will stop all further claims to water where the entire supply is now appropriated. Every ditch which can not be filled, every pump which can not be operated, every acre of land pre- pared for irrigation which is in excess of what the stream will serve, means either a loss of the money invested or the robbing of an earlier user; some- times it means both. So long as the right to make new appropriations is unrestricted, so long will old rights be insecure. Already disputes over the surface flow have extended to underground waters. Men cut off from the supply by surface ditches build galleries to drain it off through the ground, and call it developing water. Sometimes it is developing water and sometimes it is stealing it. Men who can not get artesian supplies tap and lessen these supplies with pumps. Upland wells are drained by lowland wells. Pipe lines in one orchard are empty because those in another are full. On one section inspected orange trees were dying for lack of water, on an adjoining one new groves were being planted, and the processes of appropriation and disappropriation were going on almost side by side. The advantages of public control which would restrict the construction of additional works until it had been demonstrated that there was water for their use and provide for a just division among the works already in existence seemed so obvious that I sought from those directly interested an explanation of why an attempt had not })een made to secure it. The reply in every case was practically the same. All classes of water users and water claimants united in saying the State government did not offer any prospect of remedy and that they could not afford to take any chances but prefeiTed tf) come to an agreement among themselves. It is not believed that this fear is well founded. It wouid take remark- ably corrupt officials to create evils equal to those now existing. The STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. 55 notion that we must have human nature reformed and all the State ma chin ery perfected before anything is done toward the regulation of streams is certainly erroneous. That any sort of system will remedy all these evils, or entirely avert controversies, is not expected. No matter how efficient a code of laws may be devised, or how honest and efficient their administra- tion, there is certain to be friction because of the conflicting views created by the unfortunate absence of definite control in the past. When Wyoming was admitted to statehood the water-right situation did not differ greatly from that of California. The records were scattered in the various counties; the claims were as extravagant, indefinite, and valueless as those compiled in this investigation. The Wyoming irrigation law of 1890 created a special tribunal called the board of control, of which the State engineer was made ex officio president, and intrusted it with the settlement of existing rights and the disposal of all unappropriated water. The board began with a i-iver where controversies were acute and where ajjpropriators were at war with each other. The river had not for several years supplied the needs of imgators; hence no extravagant or speculative rights could be recognized without depriving late appropriators of their already scanty supply. At the outset the board determined to base all rights to streams on two principles: Actual use was to be the basis of all riffhts and the water was to be attached to the land rather than to ditches or ditch owners. In doing this it placed itself squarely in opposition to the doctrine which was most strenuoush' advocated and which was that appro- priators had a vested right to the volume claimed in their recorded notices of appropriation, whether or not this volume had been used. In order to maintain its position the board had not only to know how and where water was being used, but to be able to show to all those aff'ected by its decisions the source and accuracy of its information. The problem was not simply to satisfy its members that its decisions were lawful and right, but to convince appropriators that its policy was both just and wise. This required first of all a careful examination of the physical conditions along the stream. Each ditch diverting water was surveyed and its capacity measured. The area of the land it in-igated was determined, the flow of the river was gaged from time to time during the season, and records kept of the ditches which diverted this water. When these field investigations were completed maps and tables were prepared which showed the location and size of ditches, the land irrigated, and the measured flow of the stream. Equipped with this information, the board was prepared to pass intelligently on the claims of ap])ropriators. The preparation and submission of their proofs 56 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIi^ORNIA. was made simple by the use of a blank form which was in part copied aftei the desert proofs used in the United States land offices, and which enabled appropriators to state definitely, but briefly, the date when the ditch was built and the successive dates when the area irrigated was extended. Many were able to prepare their proofs without any advice or assistance and without incun-ing any expense, as the sui'veys, maps, etc., were all paid for by the State. Later on, when the State law was better understood, it was rare that these proofs contained either inaccuracies or misstatements, but at the outset some of the proofs submitted were curiosities. As it was known that the amount of the appropriation would be fixed by the acreage of land which had been irrigated, some of the claimants with expansive ideas included in their descriptions lands which were many miles away from and hundreds of feet above their ditches. Without the preliminary survey some of these proofs might have been accepted, but with the official map before it the board rarely failed to notice the discrepancies between the sworn statements and the actual situation. It required tact, firmness, and patience to have these attempts to secure excessive amounts of water rectified and prevent a rebellion against a rigid adherence to facts which was in striking contrast to the slipshod methods that had hitherto prevailed. It was made manifest, however, that the board always stood i-eady to correct its maps or measure- ments if they were shown to be in error, but until this was shown no variation between them and the proofs would be permitted. A few test surveys were made, but fortunately the official maps proved to be correct. Of late years their accuracy is rarely questioned. When the agreement between the proof and the survey was finallv secured a table was made which gave the acreage irrigated by each appropriator and the amount of water required under an assumed duty of 1 cubic foot per second for each 70 acres of land described. The law provides that after these proofs of appropriation have been submitted and befoi'e any action has been taken thereon by the board all interested jjai'ties shall have an opportunity to inspect them and contest any statements or claims believed to be erroneous. There was a large attendance at the first inspection and a general disposition to oppose the board's raling that the volume of an appropriation should be determined by the acres iiligated rather than by the volume claimed. But when the total volume required for the land already watered was compared with the total flow of the stream, and these with the table of recorded claims, there was a complete reversal of this attitude. There were in all 132 ditches along the river. If claims to water were to govern, the first appropriator would have a right to the STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. 57 entire supply after midsummer, and the first six or seven would have a right to the entire supply at any time. This would leave the. lands under more than 120 of the later ditches without any legal right to water. It was manifest, on the other hand, that if the board's niling was maintained every ditch would have water during part of the season and with economy nearly all would have water throughout the entire season. The policy of the board was accepted, and the harmonious and satisfactory settlement of rights in the first adjudication has been followed by ten yeai-s of similar results. Beginning in opposition to preconceived ideas, the board has in the inter- vening years succeeded in defining and establishing over 4,000 territorial rights, with remarkably few contests or protests against its decisions. There lies before me as this is written the records of the last determination of territorial water rights made by the board of control. In all there are 236 appropriators, some of whose rights date back twenty years and amount in the aggi*egate to 500 cubic feet per second. All of the rights to a river and its tributaries have been determined in this one procedure, and this without friction between appropriators, and with a total expense to each of 81.75 in fees for the issuance and recording of each certificate of appropriation. This history of another western State has been referi'ed to because it shows that rights can be settled without contest and without neighborhood ill feeling. The State has footed the bills, but it has been immensely benefited by its ex])enditure. It has promoted development, established peace where dis- cord formerly prevailed, and added to both the selling and taxable value of iiTigated land. The settlement of water rights in Wyoming has been described not to suggest the adoption of the Wyoming law in California, but to encourage the enactment of some law by showing how order and security have been brought out of confusion not unlike that portrayed in this report. It has seemed more instructive to tell how a thing has been done than to theorize as to how it can be done. In .some of its details the Wyoming law is imperfect. Later experience and a better understanding of the subject ought to result in more effective legislation. It is based, however, upon certain fundamental principles which are essential to the success of any inigation system and hence seemed worthy of comment. Another iirigation law worthy of the study of the people of California is the Northwest Irrigation Act of the Dominion of Canada. In its admin- isti'ative methods it is the most complete and effective irrigation code yet enacted on this continent. A brief reference to this law is made in Bulletin No. 58, Office of Experiment Stations, but this has proven insufficient to a full 58 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. understanding of its provisions, and a more complete discussion is presented in Bulletin No. 96. THE NEED OF A SPECIAI, TBIBtTNAIi TO SETTLE EXISTrWG RIGHTS. The reports of Mr. Smythe and Mr. Grunsky show how little progress has been made in reaching a final settlement of existing rights in the courts. Professor Soul^ filed with his report a statement of litigation on the San Joaquin which had, like the list of water filings, to be omitted because it was a volume in itself. -The discussion of this subject by J.udge Works ^ is to the same effect. All lu'ge some plan for a simple, orderly, final settle- ment of all the rights along each stream. To show how little has been really accomplished by the court decrees thus far rendered, an abstract was made of the litigated cases named in Mr. Grrunsky's report as follows: ABSTBACT OF LITIGATION OVER RIGHTS TO KINGS RIVER. Kings River and Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. August 10, 1875: Denied right to use Centerville channel of Kings River. November 5, 1885: Ordered to remove dams, etc., from Kings River and Centerville channel thereof, and to cease diverting water. Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. August 10, 1875: Granted right to use Centerville channel of Kings River. March 6, 1892: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second and no more, until Last Chance Canal is supplied with 190 cubic feet per second. March 16, 1892: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second and no more, until Lower Kings River Canal supplied with 189 cubic feet per second. Previous acts of diverting 500 cubic feet per second declared unlawful. January 8, 1900: Adjudged 1,000 cubic feet per second as against the '76 Land and Water Company. Centerville and Kingsburg Irrigation Ditch Company. September 12, 1885: Ordered to remove all dams, etc., from Kings River and enjoined from diverting water or interfering with its flow. February 25, 1900: Adjudged 600 cubic feet per second, subject to prior rights of three other parties, aggregating 673 cubic feet per second. Arkansas Flat People. February 25, 1900: Adjudged right to 19 cubic feet per second. (Probably subject to prior rights as noted above in case of Centerville and Kingsburg Irrigation Ditch Company. ) Fowler Switch Canal Company. July 21, 1885: Enjoined forever from diverting any water from Kings River or from obstructing its flow. Emigrant Ditch Company. February 3, 1890: Adjudged 190 cubic feet per second as against Rancho Laguna de Tache. ' Works on Irrigation. STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. 59 76 Land and Water Company (Aha Irrigation District). November 4, 1889: Enjoined forever from diverting water of Kings River, except for riparian lands on Kings River in Fresno County. September 19, 1893: Its rights declared inferior to right of Peoples Water Ditch Company, to 200 cubic feet per second. January 8, 1900: Adjudged 500 cubic feet per second, subject, excepting during October and November, to prior right of Fresno Canal to 1,000 cubic feet and water due from Fresno Canal to Peoples AVater Ditch Company. May 9, 1900: By stipulation its rights declared inferior to right of Last Chance Water Ditch Company to 217 cubic feet per second, excepting during September and October; also that, subject to this prior right of Last Chance Company, it is entitled to 750 cubic feet per second. May 9, 1900: By stipulation its right declared inferior to right of Lower Kings River Water and Ditch Company to 182 cubic feet per second, but, subject to this prior right of Lower Kings River Company, it is entitled to 750 cubic feet per second. The area being actually irrigated from the '76 Canal is about 50,000 acres. Peoples Ditch Company. September 19, 1893: Adjudged 200 cubic feet per second as against 76 Land and Water Company. July 23, 1895: By stipulation its right declared inferior to right of Lower Kings River Water Ditch Company to 25 to 100 cubic feet per second. (Record not clear as to amount.) October 4, 1897: Adjudged 200 cubic feet per second, subject to prior right of other parties to 130 cubic feet per second. May 15, 1899: Adjudged 450 cubic feet per second. February 25, 1900: Adjudged 274 cubic feet per second as against claims of others amounting to 619 cubic feet per second. Last Chance Water Ditch Company. May 3, 1886: Enjoined from placing a dam on or obstructing flow of Cole Slough. March 6, 1892: Adjudged 190 cubic feet per second, subject to prior right of Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company to 100 cubic feet per second. April 13, 1897: Adjudged 250 cubic feet per second. October 5, 1897: Adjudged, as against Peoples Water Ditch Company and Lower Kings River Water Ditch Company, water in Kings River in excess of 300 cubic feet per second, less a pro rata contribution to which Rancho Laguna de Tache is given prior right, until the excess equals 100 cubic feet per second. February 25, 1900: Adjudged 217 cubic feet per second as against claims of others to 619 cubic feet per second. May 9, 1900: Adjudged 217 cubic feet per second. Lower Kings River Water Ditch Company. April 17, 1885: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second as against Rancho Laguna de Tache. March 16, 1892: Adjudged 159 cubic feet per second, subject to prior right of Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company to 100 cubic feet per second. July 23, 1895: By stipulation adjudged 25 to 100 cubic feet per second (record not clear as to amount) as against Peoples Water Ditch Company. October 4, 1897: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second, subject to prior right of Rancho Laguna de Tache to 30 cubic feet per second, as against Peoples Water Ditch Company and Last Chance Water Ditch Company. February 25, 1900: Adjudged 182 cubic feet per second as against claims of others amounting to 619 cubic feet per second. May 9, 1900: By stipulation adjudged 182 cubic feet per second as against 76 Land and Water Company. Crescent Canal Company. June 4, 1898: By stipulation adjudged 213 cubic feet per second as against Stimson Canal Company. 60 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. Stimson Canal Compani/. June 4, 1898: Permitted to build dam or levee at or near North Fork and to take water so long as prior right of Crescent Canal Company to 213 cubic feet per second not interfered with. Rancho Lagima de Ta'che. April 17, 1885: Denied more than 30 cubic feet per second until Lower Kings River Ditch Com- pany supplied with 100 cubic feet per second. July 21, 1885: Given a decision perpetually enjoining Fowler Switch Canal Company from divert- ing any water from Kings River. September 12, 1885: (jiven a similar decision against the Center\'ille and Kingsburg Canal Company. November 5, 1885: Given a similar decision against the Fresno and Kings River Canal Company. May 3, 1886: Given a decision enjoining Last Chance Water Ditch Company from enlarging lower channel of Kings River or from obstructing the flow in Cole Slough. November 4, 1889: Given a similar decision against the 76 Canal and Irrigation Company, except as to riparian lands watered by it in Fresno County. October 4, 1897: Adjudged 30 cubic feet per second as against Lower Kings River Ditch Company and Peoples Water Ditch Company. This abstract and the discussion in his I'eport shows that while the Fowler Switch Canal has been enjoined from diverting water it does divert enough to irrigate 10,000 acres, almost enough, one' would suppose, to constitute a violation of the injunction. It shows that one right now serves land 30 miles above the place where the right was acquired, it having been floated that distance upstream. It shows that if there were no rights to the stream except the adjudicated ones, and the map which accompanies Mr. Grunsky's report shows there are, an attempt to divide the river in accordance with these would be an exceedingly difficult if not impossible performance. Whoever attempts it would have to determine how much of the stream belongs to the riparian proprietors. He would have to determine which of these adjudicated rights were entitled to water and which should go without. No matter how honest he might be, he could not expect to succeed because he would have no adequate guide for his action. The Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company has a prior right as against the Last Chance Canal of 100 cubic feet per second, and a prior right against the Lower Kings River Canal to a similar amount. It has a prior right to 1,000 cubic feet per second as against the 76 Land and Water Company, but what are its rights as against the other canals! No one has the least idea. The Centerville and Kingsburg Ditch Company has a right to 600 cubic feet per second subject to prior rights of 673 cubic feet per second. What are its rights outside of these 673 feet! It will take several more lawsuits to decide. The rights of the 76 Land and Water Company are inferior to those of the Peoples Water Ditch Company, the Last Chance Water Ditch Compaii}', and the Rancho Laguna de Tache, but what is the STATE CONTROL OF STREAMS. 61 rank of priority as against others? Only the courts can answer. The records show that the owners of the Rancho Laguna de Tache have had injunctions issued against the use of water by the owners of the Fowler Switch Canal, Centerville and Kingsburg Canal, and the Kings River and Fresno Canal. These injunctions have apparently not been dissolved, yet, in a subsequent action the court has permitted one of these canals to take water and it is being taken. It is hardly necessary to follow the pei*plexity of this supposed officer any further. No ordinary mind would be equal to the strain. The showing made by these official records is referred to in order to make clear that the State has a duty toward these creators of wealth which it is not discharging so long as it leaves any of them in doubt as to what is their just share of the river's flow, and puts upon them the entire expense of securing that share. Appropriators of water ought not to be subjected to the expense of protecting their rights. That is a duty of the Govern- ment and should be paid for by public taxation. It is the only way in which impartial justice can be assured. Leaving the ownership of streams • to be fought over in the courts and titles to water to be established in ordinary suits at law has never resulted in the creation of satisfactory con- ditions and never will. As it now is the same issues are tried over and over again. Each decision, instead of being a step toward final settlement, too often creates new issues which in turn have to be litigated. The suit of one canal company against another company may settle the rights of these pai'ties as against each other, but it settles nothing with respect to other appropriators not made parties to the litigation, and the whole controversy may be opened up at any moment. A stream with three appropriators has the foundation for at least three lawsuits: A «. B, A v. C, and B y. C. If there are four appropriators the way is open for six adjudications. Often the appropriators of a stream are numbered by scores and even hundreds. It might be interesting to compute the number of legal conflicts necessaiy to a judicial determination of the relative rights on streams like the Yuba, and these will, under the present procedure, increase with years because there will be new appropriations and old ones will be extended. It is not surprising that the petition for this investigation should state that the litiga- tion is appalling. It could not be otherwise. Litigation is as natural a product of the absence of public control as are weeds in a neglected field. There can be no stability under the present situation. The law affords no means of enforcing a -right when once adjudicated except through another lawsuit. Irrigators can not live in peace. Litigati