Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-21

by Governor Haight Thee Co. -
were The Hon. creed Raymond non. i Il
Bureh, and Hon charles i5udley Ia ia. rr,,-
parat Oh OF this code aud The three Others y,;ah
were made part oil ;iIe same Act great dei--
OF time / think ABOUT TWO year s-was devoted.
In thc preparation Of these codes they were so
prepared as 10 be al one general law, and 10y
sections AIS and 4ts9 OF the Political Code it
| IS deeered that they shall be considered as
one Act, and con rued together. In the pre-
paration Of this chapter water rights
and water titles the Commissioners had in view
al me laws contained in all the Codes, and hav-
| ing the whole question beloye them, they recog-
nlzed tfe TACT that il was necessary, in order to
avoid litigation and trouble, to have some pro-
vision saving or rtserving the rights of riparian
proprletorship-rights which had become
| VeSted-and II the absence OF some sucn saving
clause. which might be questioned to this time.
| The honorable Senator from Mono is mistaken
| when he says that this doctrine OF riparian
rights has its origin in Section li22 OF the Civil
| Code. his doctrine has been in force in this
State ever since the adoption of the Common
Law as the rule OF dee siOns by the Legislature
| in 1886, and it has been recognized as in force
| by Our Supreme Cour; in numerous eases com
| mencing as early as the 5tn CAL and coming
down TO the last or 63d Cal. In the 2sth Cal. the
question Was thoroughly and fully presented to
the supreme Court in the .casc of Maria VS..
Knight, page $40. And our present Supreme
Court has not only recognized it in the
decision Of Lux VS.. Haggin, but also to
| the fullest extent in the case Of the Galena
| Water Company VS.. Forbes. 62 Cal. pages 1871
This case was decided on the I'D OF NoTem
Der. 1852. read from that decision TO show the
| Senator that am correct. Reads Now lc. us
see what the right of the riparian owner is TO
stream that courses through his land. The case
IN the 1th Nevada probably rs clearly states
| what the right is as any decided case on ths
coast, and II IS Il case that IS always regarded by
| the bench as an authority deserving of atten-
| ton, or account Of the high standing OF the
| Justices who were on the bench OF the supreme
Court of Nevada when that decided,
| the three Justices being Lewis, CARRIER and
| Whitnomb one of the earliest reports in the
| United States on this subject and we think one
| that has always been considered a leading case
| in Amer ca, is the case of Taylor VS. Wilkinson,
4th Mason, p. 400. Reads. The leading case
in England is the case of Mason ". Hill, Sd
| Bardoph and Adolphus, p. 303
| 1t has been stated by the Senator from Mono
in his argument in support Of Il is measure to
| strike out Section l422 that the right of ripa-
rian proprietors is limited to the use of water
| for household and domestic purposes. and for
| the use Of watering his stock and cattle, and
! that te has no right whatever TO take any water
| from Il stream for the purpose of irrigGtng land
which he owns along the banks OF IL stream IN
| this ! contend that the ocuator has not stated
| correctly the law applicable to the rights OF
| riparian proprietors in the State OF California.
| The use of water for irrigation 70 L reasonable
extent BY party owning land on the borders of
| stream has been repeatedly recognize d by The
| Courts of the country. 1t was recognized IN the
| case reported in the 18th Nevada. and in several
| cases i'll the California Reports il has been vir
| tually recognized. II is claimed by the honOra-
bic Senator. and has been repeatedly stated on
this floor, that in the decision of the supreme
| Court in Lux IS. Haggin, our Supreme tourt
| held that the riparian proprietor had no right
| to the use OF any water to irrigate lands upon
| the margin OF any stream running through
| his lard. II would require but Il yery
| curscry examination TO see that one Supreme
! Court in that case decided nothing Of the kind,
| but On the contrary they in express terms stated
| that the question not pre-: ented in that
| case, and therefore they did not decide or pass
| on il it auy manner whatever | refer to the
| decision Of tie Supreme C0rrt of California in
| Lux vs.. Haggin, as given in the West Coast Re
| porter, Vol, !, No. g. page 26l. Reads Now,
! IN the state Of California, in almost every in
| stance, the best and cheapest agricultural land
| is always found along the borders or banks OF
! the streams, this land being in most instances
| the Wal OF centuries from the mountains: A
! glance at any map Of the state VIII show along
| the banks of most streams belt Of swamp and
| Oyerfowed land and ever! person who has
| connection with land in this state knows
| that these are the most productive
aud the most valuable lands in the State.
| There is in this State very nearly
! 100000 acres of swamp and overtlowed lands,
! all claimed under Il grant from tine Government
under the decision read by Mr. Cross OF Nevada
| yesterday. Again. this land along the streams
requires less water to irrigate 1t than any land
! that can be found whichis away from the mar
| gin OF a stream. AS a rule it requires twice as
much water TO irrigate the high land as to irri-
! gate the land bordering on streams, or within
/ considerable distance OF water courses. Further
! than that, III every case where water is taken
/ from stream by means OF a canal leading
! from it, there Is always greater or less waste;
! and in this connection ! will reply TO the re-
marks made by some Svnator in regard to the
waste OF water which flowed along the channel,
I and finally emptied into the bay or sea. As
| l have just stated, the land which lies
! close along the rivers requires very
much less water for irrigating purposes
/ than that lying away from the riv-
/ ers 1t has been subject TO the overflow
! for years. The land has become saturated with
water, and but little OF the How IS taken up
whereas, when we take the water away from
/ the natural channel II bitches and TUNES, and
| conduct il TO Il distance, as in his case, OF
! twenty-five or thirty miles, there is an immense
/ waste Of water before the water finally reaches
1 the land where it Is to be applied SO what diff
/ ference does it make whether this final waste is
made by letting it run into the bay or by eyapo-
ration and lost, as it is in being carried through
| those canals?
The statements made before the joint COM
mittee of the Senate and Assembly. when they
! had the water bills under consideration, shows
that most OF the canals take water for some dis
tance-from ten 10 twenty-five or thirty miles,
before any great amount is used to lrrigate land,
and believe it is conceded that the average
| loss in taking water in a canal that
| distance over the plains of the southern coun-
ties is at least one third of its volume, This
feature of the water question has been fully
considered by the Supreme Court of our sister
/ State of Nevada where they have a climate
very much similar to California, and where the
! soil and its necessities are about the same as in
/ the counties of Kern, T1lare and Fresno-the
| flied if this bill should pass. The necessities
existing in Nevada for artificial irrigation are
much greater than in California, on account of
the light rainfall in that Safe. being much less
than 1t is here, and even less than in the three
| counties referred to. The case refer to is ths
| case of Varsille VS.. Harris, 18th New ada, p. 49
1t is recognized by the Bar as the leading case
on this coast on water rights. The opinion in
this case was written by Chief Justice Lewis,
and as il is directly to the point l shall ask
your indulgence while review some portion oi
Now, sir, having passed over this field, sub
nit to the Senators on this floor whether we are
doing justice to the people OF this State whether
we are DONG justice TO ourselves as Legislators
sent here to look after the interests of our con-
stituents, by repeating this Act, under which
I this State has been governed which has been
recognized as the law of the land ever since the
foundation Of the Government, and attempting
| an experiment in a new direction, without sutfi-
cient time to investigate and learn the necessi-
/ ties of the country. and what is needed in order
to carry out O perfect system of irrigation if nee
| eSsaTy. Whatwe need is more thorough knowl-
edge. We do not want to act here on this bill
( on the mere statements of persons who come
here with large landed interests to look out for
nobody's interest but their own, but we are here
I 10 legislate for the people; for the men
who have settled their homes, and plant
ed their corn and vegetables who SOW
their wheat and toll through the year
and reap their harvest. That is what We want
TO look to, not the interest of the man who has
gobbled up millions of acres at the minimum
price and they come here ana ask you 10 legiS
late for them, "Ah' says he, "you can get
your rights in the Courts Tell me where
poor man can get his rights in the Courts when
there is rich man against him? These men
have taken the landsthat belonged to the peo-
pie and used them for herding their cattle and
such uses; not benefiting the State, particu-
larry not inducing immigration to come here ;
but they control all this land, and now they de-
sire to go and take the water which has been
giving US our suseenance and lead it off to irri-
gate their arid plains.
Johnson of sonoma-I have only to say, in re-
spect TO this question, that it is question which
is not very familiar to the county OF Sonoma
We have no occasion to seek to do anything in
the way of irrigating our lands. When the rains
fail the dews come to our assistance, and at the
proper time the harvest is yielded But | ap-
precate the difference there is in the State of
California. | know that it is State extending
through a number of degrees of latitude and
| embracing every variety of sol, some arid as
the Desert of Sahara apparently, other portions
productive, and it is singular thing that the