Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-28
TIE IRRIGATION BILLS.
Holding an Inquest Over Dead Cock
in-the-Pit.


The struggle over the water question in
the Senate is now virtually reduced to a
struggle over the repeal Of Section 1922 of
the Civil Code, which states that the rights
Of riparian lrop,ietors are not affected By the
provisions Of this title" 49, That IS, that
Sections 1410 to 1921, inclusive, relating to
'' the right to the use Of running water
flowing in a river or stream, or down a
canyon or ravine, may be acquired by APP
preparation" shall not interfere with the
rights indicated in 1922.
If the above quotation in italics does pre-
vent the appropriation of water for the
purposes of irrigation, and if that is the
portion of the common law of England
which is so repugnant, where is the truth
in alleging that it has never formed any
part of the laws of this State, as is declared
in the latter part OF Section of Senate Bill
No 210 when by Section they wish to re-
peal it? Senator Whitney's amendment
to strike out all after the words and the
Law thereof" would have saved this alb
su.dity, bat amendments are too dangerous
to be allowed at this crisis.
Instead of moving merely to repeal Sec
ton 1922, why not move rather TO inform
LilS soSlidtt tlltL III Illlp dpi)iie5 10
either Fresno, Tulare, Kern or Los Angeles
counties that those counties, as well as
nearly all other counties requiring irriga-
ton, have laws unto themselves, granting
the right to take water out of the streams
for irrigation-statutes specially protected
by the Codes themselves from either the
riparian rights set forth in Section 1922 or
the right of appropriation named in Sec
tons 14I0 to 1921 inclusive, and protected
as well from the worse fraud against the
people proposed to be made by Sections
and 6 Of bill 30
Let us now see whether the two parties
are not fighting over dead cock in the pit
both ignoring the present laws.
Turn to Section 10 in the Political Code,
and in connection Herewith read Subdi
vision 6 :
Section 10. Nothing in either of the four
codes affects any of the provisions Of the
following statutes. but such statutes are
recognized as confirming IN force, etc.
Subdivision 6. All Acts creating or regu-
lating Boards Of Water Commissioners and
Overseers in the several townships or coun-
ties Of the State
The first Of these is dated May IS 1854.
By this law of May 15 1854 Section y,
authority was given 10 examine and di
rect the water courses and apportion the
waters thereof among the inhabitants OF
their district, determine the time Of using
the same and lay out and construct bitches"
Also fSection y, when water courses run
through two or more townships and the
Commissioners could not agree upon the
amount Of water to be used by each town
ship the County Judge shall determine
the difficulty
Section 10 gave the Commissioners the
right to cut bitches through those town
ships and Section Is provided for any
damages caused in crossing lands. and that
nothing in tie Act shoalld affect the mining
interests Of tliis State
This law set aside that feature Of the
common law Of England which REQUIRES
water to flow in the streams undiminishcd
in quantity. Yes, and it did more il pro-
hibited pirate or corporate ot0nersbip q he
w1ter in the streams. 1t allowed the water
to be taken out and distributed, but did
not allow persons on the stream below 70
be ruined. There is no dog-in-the- mangeT
policy in that law. 1t respected the rights
and necessities of all parties
Before the Codes took effect the principal
features Of the Act were applied to the
counties of San Diego, San Bernardino,
Santa Barbara, Napa, Los Angeles, Solano,
Contra Costa. Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Colusa,
Sonoma, Tehama and Siskiyou-all were
preserved in force by the Codes and not
interfered with by Section 1922 or any
other section Of Title s. Why, then, repeal
ali these laws, as is proposed by Section 6
of Bill 30, and merely Section 1922 of
Title s, and strengthen the other sections
of said title by adding to them Section of
Bill 2l0? will answer; The canal owners
have Systematically and continually ig-
nored and violated the laws just referred to
ever since Title became q part of the Codes.
Because they had money 10 build bitches
they claim &c otea the ,pd.er likccise, and
take it where and when they pleased and
now that the Supreme Court has par
italy stopped the plumber, they call upon
the Legislature, which stands rs the guard
ian Of the peoples rights TO water as
against both riparianists and ditch owners,
10 drive one or the other to the wall
Senator Whitney's bills, declaring that !
the waters of all streams belong to the peo- |
pie. and that the ditch owners are only |
carriers of the water belonging to /
the people, come up nearer 20 the principles !
of the Acts above referred TO than anything /
else proposed. The vice of nearly all The ;
bills On irrigation is the taking Of the pat |
rimony of the people from them, and Civ |
ing it over to private and corporate owner |
ship. They leave no elasticity for the !,
future of the State. Let the ditch-owners
keep, if they deem it their vested rights in