Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-04-07
IRRIGATION BILLS.
THOSE RECENTLY BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE.
Letter from Senator Cross Review
ing Them and Stating His
Objections to Them.

Objections to Them.
The following letter, received from Sena-
! tor C. W Gross, criticisingthe bills recently
before the Legislature upon the subject OF
i irrigation, will be read with interest, as this
| is the most important question now before
the people of the State, and by criticism
and proper discussion of measures proposed
will the most feasible solution of the con-
| flicting interests arising out of the different
phases of the subject be reached, Senator
Gross says:
The press of the State, and especially the
! best elements of the country press, has pald
much attention to the question of lrrlga-
! ton as presented at the last session OF the
| Legislature. The action Of those members
of the Legislature who opposed the passage
of the Fresno Convention bills has been
somewhat, though | believe nearly always
decently, criticised Neither the friends
nor opponents of these bills SO far as | am
aware, have, through the press, ana!yzed or
! criticised the provisions of these bills. The
provisions of Senator Whitney's bill Senate
! Bill No. j0). and the Wigginton bill, being
| Senate Bill No. 2l0, and Assembly Bill 40.
40 (the two last rs originally introduced
! being identical) were fully discussed IN the
Senate and the discussions, | believe, were
fairly and quite fully presented by the prin-
! cipal daily papers of the State.
But the principal irrigation bills, those
prepared and represented by Hon. j. De
Barth Shorb, Mr.. Green and others, were
put through the Assembly quite hastily,
under the previous question, and presented
to the Senate, bu. owing to the brevity OF
the session, the fact that there were 50
many other bills ahead OF them in the
order of business, and other facts which
! have been more or less animadverted upon,
the bills were never reached IN the Senate :;
consequently were little examined and
never publicly discussed.
These bills were three in number. They
were not discussed upon their merits either
in the Assembly or Senate. ] think 1t has
been quite generally supposed that these
bills were irrigation bills; that is, that their
purpose was solely to furnish means OF
irrigation, and that upon that hypothesis a
very large element of the public sentiment
of the State, concerning the passing of
these bills. was based. If it had been I'M
derstood that these bills forced into the
most extensive and expensive litigation
every water claimant in the State, author
lied the taking of water rights from those
who had acquired and held them according
10 law immemorially, and bestowing them
upon those who had never acquired or
claimed any right TO them whatever, it is
hardly conceivable that these meas
urcs could become popular measures.
These bills presented TO the Legislature
by the committee of the Fresno Conven-
ton grew directly out of litigation between
claimants of water in Kern, Tulare and
Fresno counties. Tie parties to these suits
were few but the expenses of the litigation
were enormous, aAd the decision of the
Supreme Court disastrous to MesSTs. Haggin
Il reyis, who had expended very large
sums of moneyin the construction Of canals
to irrieate very large territory Of desert
lands, and was equally disastrous 10 those
who had bought lands at a high price, eX-
pecting to obtain water from these canals
for irrigation.
The first OF the bills was 4 constitutional
amendment recognizing irrigation districts
as municipal corporations. This bill was
meant to enable the irrigation districts to
borrow money. levy taxes, contract debts
and issue bonds, etc This bill could serve
no possible purpose, good or bad, without
the passage of the other bills. 1t therefore
requires no further comment.
The second bill was commonly called
"the Adjudication bill" Il provided for
the forfeiture Of Il very large share of the
most valued water rights in The State, re-
Quired every water-right claimant in the
State 20 be sued, and i'll large majority Of
instances the party would have to % out o!
the county where the water right was stu
ated for the trial of his causes. But to be
more specific:
Section I required every water claimant
in the State 10 record within one year a
notice containing q specific statement of a
large number of facts, and among many
others the following: The time when the
first diversion was in fact made. The eX-
tent then and ever since. The dimensions
and kind Of the original and subsequent
means Of diversion. The places where it
has been used. The purposes for which it
has been used. The area of lands irri-
gated. etc In this connection it is worth
while 10 note that large share Of The most
important water rights are very Old
rights, and whilst they are well
known and undispued, their carly
| history is unknown. In many
localities no records of water right locations
I were eyer made. In others, as in Nevada
county, the records have been long de
stroyed by fire The present owners could
not possibly state correctly the time when
the first diversion was in fact made. TIE
witnesses of the original appropriations are
dead or scattered. The dimensions of the
original works for diversion in case of these
old water rights could not be correctly
| stated. In Nevada county. which has
more money invested in works for the
diversion Of water than any other county
in the State, not onc-iourth Of the water
claimants could correctly state " the time
when the first diversion was in fact made "
or the dimensions OF the works orig
inallv
But Section provides that upon a
failure to make and file this declaration of
claim, as prescribed in Section /, such
claim shall by force and effect Of failure
itself and alone, cease, and thereby be con-
clusively deemed waived and abandoned
That is, claimant for water rights is re-
quired to do a thing, which in large
number of cases is impossible, and for
failure to perform an impossbility his
rights are waived and forfeited.
But this is only the beginning of trouble
Next the Attornev-Gcneral must sue every
water claimant in the State, whether his
claim be large or small-w whether he is the
owner of mill-dam or one who claims
! the right to water stock at a brook travers-
ing his land, or to divert water to irrigate a
4O-acre field, or a half-acre potato patch
All must be sued,
Now, water-right suits. when they try
AllE iltIitS Oh VI lNO IVA are
usually exceedingly long and expensive
often extending through years. But the
suits required by this bill would be practi-
cally interminable, for by Section ) in one
suit must be joined all parties claiming on
the same stream and its sources. Probably
a suit upon the Sacramento river and its
, sources would involve not less than 1000
parties. Suppose that the case ran contin-
! uously, and that each party required two
days for his proofs-which would not be at
all unreasonable-and that the arguments
Of each ones right required a day suppose
the findings required each one page, and
! this bill requires that as to each claimant
four distinct and troublesome facts must be
| found-the judgment would be thousands
of pages and when the appeal was taken
! the Legislature would have to provide an
other deputy Supreme Court to help clear
the calendar. No party to the suit when
it commenced would live to hear the case
decided.
But 'chere would the case be tried? Sup
posing that man in Nevada county (who
takes four inches of water from the South
| Iuba river TO irrigate an alfalfa patch)
| should conclude to hire lawyers, and could
get the necessary witnesses, and had sutii-
! cient bank account to stand It, and should
| conclude that, rather than give up his
right he would engage in a lawsuit of
years continuous trial. with thousands of
fVVH~ nj ~ II 1.