Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-17
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
EXTRA Observation-Disclosures DAY.
SENATE.

MONDAY, August l6 1886.
The Senate met al 80 p NJ D., President Daggett
in the chair. Roll called, and quorum present.
Prayer by the Chaplain Journal of Thursday
read and approved.
THE DEL VALE BILL.
The special order for the day was Del Yalle's
Senate bill No. 16, IAN Act concerning the
ownership. appropriation, diversion and use of
| waters in this state" The bill is as follows
! Section l. The waters of all natural streams
within the State are hereby declared 10 be the
property OF the pubic, and dedicated to the use
| of the people of the State. Such waters may be
diverted and used for irrigation or other bene-
fetal purposes under regulations prescribed by
! law; provided, that navigation in navigahe
streams under the control OF the United states
| shall not be impaired; and provided. that the
rights now acquired to appropriate. divert and
use water shah not be impaired so long as such
water is applied to the purposes for which the
same has been appropriated or for other bene-
Section ?. All Acts and parts of Acts which
conflict in any way with the provisions OF this
Act are hereby repealed
Section 8. This Act shall take effect from ana
I after its passage.
| Del Vale said he understood there was great
deal of objection to some of the provisions of
| the bill and indeed he was not himself pleased
with all its features. He therefore moved to
| strike out the last provision of Section l, and
| insert in lieu thereof the following: " Pro-
vided, that the bank owners on any such stream
| shall be entitled to the amount OF water here
| tofore used by him for domestic purposes and
the watering of live stock but such water may
he furnished to such bank owner by ditch or
| otherwise"
The author remarked that many persons
seemed to be Of the opinion that the bill, in its
original form, would wipe out all rights of ripa-
rian owners to the use OF water, while this
| amendment would preserve the rights already
| enjoyed. The law now holds that the riparian
| owner has the right TO water sufficient for do
nestle purposes and the watering OF stock, ana
| the friends of appropriation had no desire TO
disturb this right.
Cross said this seemed to him like the first at
! tempt that had been made to give the riparian
/ list anything at all. Under this amendment
water might be brought to him. even though it
were taken in buckets. He would like the
amendment in print so that he could study and
| come TO fully comprehend It. lie had ABOUT
made up his mind that the riparianists were not
| to be allowed anything at all in the way OF
water. Presumably it was the intent of this
| amendment to give him the same quantity OF
1 water he had heretofore used. He thought,
however it should be amended so as to provide
| that the riparianst should have continually the
same amount of water he now has. be would
| like to zee the amendment put i'll such shape
that its intent and scope could not be mlsunder-
stood
De Long moved to amend the amendment by
| providing also that the bank owners should
have " water for irrigation purposes to such an
extent as lshan have been diverted At the time
| of the passage of this Act
Del Vale moved to amend the latter amend
ment by inserting the word " artificial before
"a irrigation"
Spencer thought it hardly within the compre
| hension of Senators to understand the import of
| the several amendments without having them
! in print. He understood Senator Del Vale
amendment TO provide that if a riparianist had
| not heretofore used water Tor irrigatiHg or do
nestle purposes, he would hereafter, be de-
barred from using 1t for these purposes mat is,
\ the man who now watered ten head OF cattle
could not. under this amendment, have water
/ tor fifty head in the future 1t must be ten or
nothing.
a ha had rofh her
| hasty in accepting Del Valles amendment to
| his own, which provided for artificial irrga-
! ton. He was allowed to Withdrawn his accept
ance.
| Del Vale explained at some length the mean
| ing and effect OF his first amendment.
Chandler liked the original bin as well as the
amendment, The latter would take every
thing from the riparianist and give 1t TO the APP
| proprietor. As n farmer, he would rather have
| the water come to him as before, in its natural
| channel and volume. rather than have 1t dealt
| out TO him in meager quantity, through pipes.
The latter proposition did not TO him look fair,
| and he would have to vote against it.
Mcclure offered to amend Del Valles amend
ment by making it read that the bank owner
| shall have all the water he may require, in
stead of equal TO what he mad heretofore used.
| He spoke ut length in support of this pro-
| position and tine general merits of the
| bill. The purpose should be to guarantee TO the
riparian owner the quantity of water required
| by him for domestic purposes, and at the same
time to save TO the people the benefit of the sur
/ Plus waters (WHICH amounts 10 aDOuL three
| fourths the original volume) that are wasted by
| evaporation and soil absorption. If this saving
| can be accomplished by piping, etc. and water
sufficient for the needs of irrigation be had
without diminishing the volume as it reaches
the riparianist, all the better II the riparanist
i is now entitled TO oDe-fourth OF the water in q
| stream, he should have it, but the irrigators
| should have the right TO use the other three
| fourths that would otherwise so to waste. If
| you say TO the riparian owner, You are en-
titled to all you may require for domestic pur-
| poses, the watering of stock and for reasonable
| irrigation" that would be only fair. This
| amendment contempates simply a legislative
| declaration that the riparian owner shall have
| what is right and proper.
SAKE thought the riparian owner was entitled
| to the natural flow of water to reasonable ex-
| tent but not to have the water conveyed TO him
| in pipes below the point where it would ma
| turally sink in the bed of the stream He should
| not have what had been denied by the AL
mighty.
Boone moved TO postpone the consideration of
the subject until the following day. The pro-
posed amendments were burdened with great
importance, and he thought they should be
printed so that Senators might study them and
consider their import. The motion was subSe-
quently withdrawn
Mcclure understood the Del Vale bill to draw
the line tightly between the riparianiSts and
irrigators. He recognized the rights of the ri
parianists as they exist. If as had been said,
they are often themselves irrigators, that is an
other thing, as they must have become so under
the law. The friends of irrigation are willing,
| by legislative QecldratlOn, 10 recognize IL
| parian rights by allowing water to be used by
| the bank owners for domestic and lire stock
purposes, but were opposed, at this time, to go
| ing beyond this. He argued that the only way
| by which a conclusion could be arrived at ut
| this time was by recognizing the clearcut ques-
| ton as between riparian rights and appropria-
! ton, and by not mixing matters up as proposed
\ by the amendment providing to allow the ripa-
| rianist water for irrigation.
| Spencer spoke at length against the bill. He
declared that it was neither right, nor just, nor
lawful to deprive the riparian owners of their
| acquired rights. The latter are willing to give
\ the surplus waters to the irrigators, but do not
I propose TO allow them all the water and then
| accept whatever quantity they may see fit to
| give back III pipes or such vessels as they might
choose to use for the purpose. He maintained
| that the effect of the proposed amendment
would be to establish the rights OF appropriations
| to the use of the water. Its wording was decep-
| tive, by pretending to make some concession TO
| the riparianists, while in reality it did not
| Gross could not see what harm could result
| from speaking right out aud telling what the
| amendment proposed to do, He reviewed the
| law of water and other property rights, and
| showed how, in early days, the miners right to
| q sufficient flow of water upon his riverb
] claim was always recognized by those above
| him on the stream and upheld by the Courts.
! To the water question as it stands to-day he ap-
| piled the same rule He believed the effect OF
| the amendment would be TO establish the rights
! of prior appropriations to the running waters of
the State. If he were going TO be executed he pre-
| ferred being killed all at once, rather than be
| destroyed by piece meal. 'Ihlngs, he said,
"are generally done on grand scale here in Cal
forEia, and if we are going to rob the riparian
| list, let us do it like gentlemen highwaymeD.
and not like scavengers."
! johnson of Sonoma said he was not in happy
| accord with any of the proposed amendments.
\ Under that offered by Senator belong, the irri-
gator might complain that it allowed too much
water to be taken out by the riparianist, and
the latter might object that 10 some cases it
tailed or shut off his own rights. All sides
| agree that "vested rights should not be taken
from any person or class, but there is question
as TO what constituted vested rights. He was
not In favor of-as these amendments permitted
I validating any act on the part OF a rparianist
| that might do wrong 10 another by declaring
| his right to an unwarrantable use of water, and
simply because he may have already used more
| than he required.
The question being demanded, belongs
amendment was lost
Johnson offered a substitute to Del Valle's
| amendment providing that nothing i'll this
Act shall be construed to impair vested rights"