Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-07


was ordered reported favorably.
The committee then adjourned.
SENATE IRRIGATION COMMITTEE.
meeting of the Senate Committee on irri-
CATION and Water Rights was held yesterday
afternoon Senator TAYLOR presiding. Consider
u AN Act to define riparian rights
The author of the bill spoke at some length
on the merits OF his bin, quoting literally from
the recent decision q the supreme Court in the
case OF Lux & Miller VS.. Haggip x Carr in sup
port of his argument.
Mr. Cross said he could see some reason in
the bill-at least in the intent-and 1t was
worthy of serious consideration He wanted TO
see the riparian proprieiors have sufficient
water for their own uses, and yet he did not
think the deserts should always be left barren
Ii would not be Just to say that either the ripa-
rianist or irrigatOr should be wholly deprived
of some of the waters flowing in the streams.
The Courts say the laws of the State have never
clearly defined what are the rights of riparian
owners and here is declaration, or an at
tempt, TO define those rights, so that the Courts
may in the future have some legislative action
in the premises 70 guide them
MI Reddy said he could see no use in repeal
ing Section l422 of the Civil Code reported fa-
vorably by the Judiciary Committee) If the bill
under consideration should be passed Should
Section 1922 be repealed, all future sales of lands
by the State would not entail the rights to water
heretofore recognized as belonging to riparian
lists As il now is that section has the effect of
shutting out from the rivers in the san Joaquin
valley everybody but the riparian owners, Any
one else would be a trespaSSer there. If this
section be maintained the riparian owner may
deprive towns and villages of the right to use
water for domestic purposes. We should do all
we can TO remove this obstacle to the settlement
and development of lands outlying from The
streams. If our Legislature had in early days
adopted the civil law instead of the common
law (which means common RUM the Courts
would not have been called upon to affirm the
present condition of affairs. There is every rea-
son for the repeal of this common law. and for
the non-passage OF the bill under consideration,
which, in his opinion, upheld the principles of
the common law.
Mr.. Cross-Your idea, Senator, is that the
water should be given TO those Who will make
the best use of it?
Reddy-Yes when the case is free and open,
and private rights and property not interfered
vita
Cross-well, now suppose Mr. Haggin over
here had on his ranch a lot of jackasses which
he was putting to no valuable use, would you
propose to take and distribute them about TO
Others that would use them?
Reddy-No. sir; there are too many jackasses
already distributed over the country. This is
why the riparian doctrine has been put in force.
Later on in the discussion. Mr.. Spencer asked
Mr Reddy of what use-under his view of the
situatiOn-were the bills now proposed to the
Legislature. Mr. Reddy replied that he was not
sure that any of them could be efiective-per
haps not all Of them together.
Nr. Cross-Are we not in about the same po-
Slllc0 THAT the iueUlDtTS Oi Alic NOusAllubAGudi
Convention found themselves when dealing
with the Chinese question? We were all de-
siro S of doing something to remedy the ey1l.
but were not sure that we could effect anything
in the face of the Federal Constltutlon-that
would reach the evil
Mr. Spencer-EXeept to do something that
would look well in print
Mr Reddy spoke at considerable length, and
q running debate eusued between himself and
Messrs Cross and Spencer covering all imagin-
able phases of the irrigation question.
In reply TO a question by Mr. Cross, as to
whether or not the riparanist should be al
lowed any water at all, Mr. Reddy said that
when all the water was demanded for irriga-
ton in the country above him, il should be
taken from the riparianist down below-every
bit of it, Only he would have a law 10 con-
demn and pay him him for his property.
Mr.. Spencer said that natural justice demands
that the first sett ers upon the rivers are en-
titled 10 as much of the water flowing through
their lands as their needs require. II was very
strange that if this question of irrigation has
been such a momeDtous one we did not hear
anything about the rights !. OF appropriations
when the Constitutional Convention was IN seS-
sion a few years ago. He wanied TO know why
he. as q riparianist should not have the right
TO the wafer flowing through his land for the
purpose of disposiug of it to irrigstors IN his
Y here he could supply a thousand
families, instead of giving that exclusive right
TO persons 10 use the water nlgher up on the
stream, where only fifty families might be sup
Piled.
amended as follows ithe amendment being in
brackets, and directed to be reported back Ia
yorsblv. Ayes-TaylOr, Sake, Cross, Spencer;
loes-Reddy. Del Vale. The bill reads: = Ri !
1arisu rights are hereby declared to consist of
he right 10 the use Of so much OF any BODY OF |
water flowing through. or contiguous TO- the /
ands Of any proprietor as is necessary for 90 |
nestle use. The watering of stock, irrigation !
yhen practicable, and mechanical purposes
provided that, ySen used fer such Eeehanieai