Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-01-08
AND DESTRUCTION OF
NAVIGATION.

The Kern county Californian has this to
Say-and NE give its remarks in their en-
tirety, as they represent misrepresentation
in other quarters also:
The REcoRD-Er sion is usually on the right
side and in the advance on all questions relat-
ing TO public progress and Improvement and
for that reason its in regard 10 irrigation
Ill the Sacramento valley is looked upon with
surprise. 1t opposes project on foot TO take
ont an irtiEating canal, on the west side of the
valley, 10 irrigate and make productive 9a1
square miles CT land on the ground that it may
injure the navigabi.ity of the lower Sacramento.
At those seasons of the year when irrigation is
necessary. there Is water enough to irrigatc the
entire valley without sensibly diminishing the
volume IN the channel were it not true that in
process OF time all the water used for irrigation
would find drainage into the river But the
consideration OF navigation should not for
moment be allowed 10 stand in the way of irri-
cation, even II. with the first canal it were en-
Urely destroyed Irrigation, with the popula-
ton ana trade it would bring with It. would
cover be valley with network of competing
railroads furnishing cheaper aud quicker trans
pOTtatiun than is now given 70 those living on
the banks of the river. besides Obviating the
danger OF Hoods and enhancing the value OF
their property ive-told
Our contemporary does not state the
question fairly. We have not opposed
irrigation schemes for the Sacramento val
ley, though they are less needed here than
in the southern valleys, and therein largely
resides The superiority of the agricultural
north over the agricultural south
It is not needed that we should recount
how diligently, unseliishly and persistently
the KEyoEn-UNIoN has lahored in the in
terests OF northern California the develop
ment Of It's resources and the peopling of
its valleys and hills, nor Of the agricultural
interes-s Of the whole State, and how it
has been and is the friend Of irrigation
schemes. All that is a matter Of history.
What the REcoRD-UNloN has pointed
out is that the Sacramento river is a navi-
gable highway free TO all the people.
That it is the indiyisible, an indefeas-
ible heritage, not only of California, but
of every citizen of the United States
wherever he may be, and no principle of
law or government is better settled
That the people of the upper valley have
no right to divert the waters of the stream,
the Federal Government alone having
control over it to that extent.
That if A. may, without consent of
competent authority tap the river at one
point, 81 may DO it at another, "C'
at another, and 50 on down and up the
river. until even irrigation would he ina
possible and navigation be bIotted out.
Tha; the special scheme to which our
contemporary refers Is not one of irriea-
ton only, but contemplates taking out a
body OF water l20 feet wide and feet
deep tree feet belopr io,r-uoter raa7t, and car
lying j. some sixty miles for irrigation,
and to sci for pratt Of a company }or drink
ina and other domestic purposes to farmers
and the people of villages and towns, and
finally the discharge of what may be left,
not by return into the river, but into a
salt tide-slough making up from Suisun
bay.
That the promoters Of this scheme have
not, at any time, claimed that they have
the right, or expect to obtain it. to take
enough water to materially iniure the
naviga6ility of the stream. On the CON
trary, they expressly disclaim such pur-
pose ard right.
That there can he no sensible or IA
tionaI claim made that every taker of
wafer shall be constituted the judge of
what taken by him will materially injure
the navigability of the stream.
That there must be some competent at