Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-26
THE IRRIGATION BILLS.
Another Review of Them-Reply to
Messrs. Green and Zumwalt.

lean people acquired the terrltOry OF Gal
| ifornia irrigation had been practiced her
| for many years upon lands bordering OF
the streams, generally in close proximity
yet sometimes more remote; but. whethe
near or remote, the diversion of waite
therefor was the common right of all wht
needed it. No one was debarred. no on,
could be cut off, for water was the common
properly of all the inhabitants. Hence
when community needed water. all haC
to unite in the construction of the canal tC
bring i'll the water. The inhabitants wer,
called out for constructing or repairing
canals the same as our Road Overseers now
do for work on the roads; it being to sub
serve the general good, all had to con
tribute by his labor or his means No pri
yate ownership in the canals or water was
known or allowed.
by the phrase, to live and let live" was
one that the old Spaniards practiced in the
| matter of irrigation, and which they fore
saw was necessary to be embodied in the
law OF the State for its future well
fare in all the counties where irri-
CATION was likely to be needed
by Withholding water needed for
irrigation from private or corporate
appropriation as was done by the law OF
May Is, 1854, surely we Americans can
afford to live under as equitable a law.
We profess TO be Il law-abiding people; and
yet one Of our noble Senators announced
the other day that the question at issue
tand that there was no use in Disgusting
the fact in the water bills now before the
Legislature, is to determine which body of
water claimants must 90 to the wall-the
riparianists or the irrigatorS as he consid-
cred it impossible to furnish water to both.
Now, ask, has this proposition been set
tied 50 certainly that the State must be
called upon to determine the survival of
the tittest that to compel each side to
let the other live is out of the question?
admire the Senator'S frankncSs in stating
the substance of the bills introduced by
him and his defense of their principles. II
iorcbly reminds me of the manner in
which Caleb McNulty once announced his
Democracy III Cleveland on another subject.
viz: That he believed i'll equal and exact
justice 10 all men except niggers, by Cd"
He makes the irrigatorS stand before this
Legislature like the old man imploring
heavens blessing Upon him and his wife,
his son John and his witc-;hey four and
no more, amen
After So frank an acknowledgment of the
meaning of these bills, ii is not out of place
to carefully examine thc machinery en-
ployed and the application of their principle
to other sections Of the State than Fresno
First-Shouid the question be settled by
the number of people dependent upon irri-
CATION and appropriation of water therefor;
or, second, by the quantity of land which
can be irrigated and thereby made arabic?
If tho former thrr, tho M inritV n
bers being at and near Fresno, their interests
would be paramount over the fewer num-
Der of riparianiStS in that section, say in
the ratio of 5000 to l,G0, though the 900
own the larger area OF land capable of
irrigation.
Now, apply this principle TO the section
OH the Santa Ana river below Riverside.
The people on the north side of the river
number about 1000, and are all holding
under the law of appropriation, While the
people ON the south side of the river, num-
bering about 10000, claim only as riparian
lists and on 10 other principle, and own
the largest amount of irrigable land. Must
they as riparianists, 20 to the wall for the
benefit of the 1000 who claim as appro-
priators? Yes. If appropriation is to be
the only rule which should prevail in law
and practice and if the riparianists must go
TO the wall
But after litieating the question for
years and expanding about $4,000 i'll suits,
the Supreme Court held that neither party
could interfere with the other; and, like
sensible men, they divided the stream,
consolidated the bitches on each side under
different arrangements, and now Use what
they have to the fullest extent, AMI find
that both sides are . fit to survive"
Second = But if the area of land slis-
ceptible of cultivation by irrigation is TO be
the governing principle, instead of the
number Of people dependent upon irrga-
ton for their living, then the colonies add
jacent to and including Fresno should not
if they are found to be the ones
that must go to the wall. not being able TO
show in Court that their interest i'll the
acreage susceptible of irrigation is greater
than the acreage Of the smaller number of
riparianists.
Here is dilemma. The Fresno colonies
demands are urgent because of the number
Of people, and the Tulare and Kern people
are urgent because of their great acreage
and great stock interests with few people
If the majority can take the water by con-
demnation under Section T. by " showing
4 manifest greater public use what may
become Of the estates in Kern county de
pendent entirely upon artificial irrigation?
They, as we'll as the riparianists whose
lands are irrigated by percolation, would go
TO the wall, and their lands be rcicgated to
the desert whence They came, whenever the
few residents around Bakersfield may see
rit TO call for a condemnation, on the
ground of the water being a greater public !
use to them than 10 the few owners of the
estates named.
But what becomes of the condemnation
,rb,n.aI rfr,inrs SpsfsIy, 10 " hon r4-n road
HE provisions OF Section Il? Docs it not |
smack of great cry and little wool? "
= Pf0cmed, that water already appropriated
shall, after the organization of the district |
be utilized as AT present, through existing
works" etc. They cannot condemn before
and if the water be appropri-
lted before, the prior condition remains I'M
changed. The ditch and water owner
Yields nothing, and cannot be made to
Weld anything But the second proyiso |
establishes the basis for distribution u pom
the acreage in the district, and attaches ii
10 the land III perpetuity without reference
% the number OF inhabitants III ease the !
sub or irrigation district be formed. This |
wholly ignores the question Of " the great |
ast public use for the number Of people
Now suppose Miller & Lux, Clarke & |
Cox, the Hebron Brothers, Ha@rin q, |
arr and other large land owners Should |
organize the water districts. and then pro- !
ICED To organize irrigation districts, willing |
and ready to bear their proportion of all |
expenses according TO their acreage, what |
would become of The owners OF the smaller |
acreage however numerous they might be, |
lnless they could capture the Board of SUI i
DcrylSorS and through them manage 10 cut |
Dff subdivision and take the water to !
To facilitate the creation of |