Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-08-18

EDIroR HERALD: II seems 10 me that
the true way out Of our water troubles
in California IL 10 assimilate our water
system to our land system. Water is
an appurtenance- moveable appnrte'
nance--of land. Il comes ont Of the
lard and should properly be subject to
the same general principles as to owner
ship, ETC., so far as they are applicable,
| that land is. II our lawmakers and
law.cxpounders, who know nothing Of
practical irrigation. would adopt this
rule in their attempts to evolve public
water system suited to the physical and
| climatic conditions Of this State, they
will be surprised to find how often II
will prove useful in simplifying ques.
ton that to many seems to be envsloped
In impenetrabie darkness.
The experience Of hundred years has
enabled the American people to work
out o well.defned and perfectly coher.
ont public land system. The farmers
and irrigators OF Southern California
have become acquainted by actual ex-
perience- best basis OF knowledge in
the world with q use OF water, and
with conditions Of soil and climate that
are practically unknown to the greater
portion Of the people OF the United
States.
Under our national land system any
citizen may take up public land--in lin
tied quantities sand by complying with
certain conditions, such a. occupying it
and improving It'll e., using it--acquire
legal title to IL IL Is universally con-
cedtd that the whole country is bene-
lited by having these waste public lands
thus appropriated, occupied and made
valuable. Each individual settler, in
benefiting himself benefits the State; in
adding to his own wealth he adds to the
common wealth. Now think IL will be
universally conceded that the cores
ponding small appropriations and actual
users OF the waters OF Southern Calitor-
MIA, that were running to waste during
the last third of century, in the rea-
| ton Of thousands OF homes, were like
wise public benefactors. In enriching
| themselves they have enriched the State.
And why Is not the occupier OF public
water-in limited quantities-as much
entitled to protection in his rights and
the enjoyment of the wealth he HAS Gre.
ated as the occupier and appropriation Of
public land
The State has declared In favor of the
principle that water may be appropri-
ated. but that does not m ean that a
single person may appropriate an unlim-
tied amount; II It did then one person
could have appropriated all the waters
Of the State.) Now let il go step fur.
Their and declare that the amount Of
water that any one person may acquire
an ownership of by appropriation and
use shall be limited by law. And then
make that limit las. q maximum) apply
to the past as well us 10 Inc future,
precisely in principle, as the Federal
government declares that no person can
acquire title (by occupying as home.
stead) to more than one hundred and
sixty acres, or quarter section OF land.
Having declared these two principles.
The right to use public water, and
that the amount shall be limited-it can
then at its leisure consider the best
mode Of limitation. whether the mari.
mum shall be by miners. inches, or, as
in this city, one "irrigating head" for
each ten acres per month, and that one
person shall only acquire right, By op
propriItion, to water sufficient for, say
a fourth or u half or an eighth of quar-
ter section Of land. This matter of FIX
ing the maximum limit of water that
may be taken up by each irrigator may
require some study. But the principle is
sound, Just as the limitation of the $50
acres OF land to the homesteaker, and
the necessity is ust as fundamental.
Indeed, the contrary doctrine would be
ntolerable.
10 assume that because the govern
ment permitted, at first, u citizen to &C.
cupy public land, that he might there
fore occupy and acquire an interest IN
whole territory, would not be more ao'
surd than to infer that because this
State permits people to use water that is
running to waste, that therefore single
individual can gobble up the whole
river or all the water there Is in sight.
Ia either Case the assumption would
DO contrary to public policy and to com.
mon sense. Carried out to its logical
conclusion 1t would mean in one case
that a single person. If he had started in
soon enough, might have acquired title
to all the land in the United States, and
in the other, that he might have taken
up all the waters in this State. The
State should take the position that it
permits appropriation OF water. but not
approsriafion pithom limit. and that
therefore those who have attempted to
divert and use water beyond certain
reasonable amount, hare not acquired
title to su,h surplus; because such UNI
reasonable claims are contrary to public
policy and to the public welfare.
Perhaps 1t would be well for the Leg
stature to declare all mere paper claims
to winter that have been recorded for
speculative purposes, but never used,
null and void But this is hardly neces'
sary as Sec. i4ll OF the code declares that
the right ceases when the appropriation
ceases to use the water claimed.
When the principle in regard to limit
ing the amount Of land that man can
take up, as a settler, is carefully applied
to the quantity of water he can appro-
pirate, the thousand and one bug bears
that have been conjured up to prevent
legislation in behalf Of the bona tide irri'
gators of the State. will dissolve in
twinkling into very thin ghosts,
Ii. d BARRows.
Los Angeles, Aug. II, 1886.