Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1889-11-16


and Mexico, and by the state and national
governments. For more than twenty years
after the acquisition of California, the law
of riparian rights was not heard Of. The
legislation of Congress is in harmony with
the law Of appropriation; and the Supreme
Court has heretofore decided that "the rights
of miners who have taken possession and
worked said mines, and the rights Of persons
who have constructed canals for purposes of
agricultural irrigation, in the region where
such artificial use Of water was an absolute
had recognized and encouraged, and was
bound to respect" Public opinion, and the
ablest jurists of the State are against the RI
parian doctrine. Its enforcement would be
virtual recognition of a private ownership
in an elemental source OF wealth, and in di-
rect opposition to the fundamental law of the
State, which declares that "water is pub.
lie use."
What is known as the "Satherwhite law"
passed by the legislature Of 1876, guarantees
the water as perpetual easement" to the
land. This law YIELDS together the land and
the water, and forever sets at rest the right
Of the irrigator to his water supply. Next
is the .Streeter law" of 1881, which places
the regulation of water rates in the hands of
the governing powers of counties and NUM-
cipal corporations. In Los Angeles, the
water supply is under control of the city gov.
eminent, who maintain the bitches. and sell
the water to those who require it. Beyond
this, there is no legislative control or regula.
ton Of the public waters by the State Of Cal
fornia. With the issue between the riparian
proprietor and the appropriation still unde-
cided, the question is in chaotic condition;
and as the Governor has pertinenlly stated,
''the rights to the use Of water are underlined
and unproven claims" The laws Of Neva.
da relating to water, are even more indefinite
and contradictory than those of California.
Following the precedent set by the latter
State, the Supreme Court of the Sage. brush
commonwealth, upholds the doctrine of ri
parian rights, and, as a result, litigation
about water is of frequent occurrence. In
Utah and New Mexico, the territorial legis-
lature have no enactments regarding public
waters, but the right of appropriation for ag-
purposes is recognized in both. In
Salt Lake City, the water is under the con-
troll of the municipality, while in New Mex.
leo, the communal system of the Pueblo
Indians, and the old Spanish laws, are still
recognized.
PROPOSED CALIFORNIA LAW.
The necessity for State control was ably
set forth by Mr.. Hall, State Engineer, at the
of irrigatiors held at Riverside,
in May, 1884. There is no man on the Coast
who has given to the subject more careful
study, or whose opinions are entitled to more
weight. In his address before that gather
ing, Mr.. Hall declared that in countries
where irrigation was long practiced, it was
shown that it must be carried on in conform.
ity with we'll defined administrative sys-
tenn, if the larger percentage Of possible
results are to be obtained. Thus far, the
policy of California has been to leave the
distribution of the public waters to the
claimants thereof, and the settlement of dis
putes to the courts. With equal propriety,
the general government might throw open
the public domain to appropriation. do away
with land Offices, and require no proof of
claims except when disputed in court by
some rival claimant. OF course under such
a system ~ there would be no undisturbed
titles in land. And yet this is the policy, not
only OF California but Of nearly all the irri-
eating States and Territories in the Union.
The fundamental principles of irrigation
never have been, and never can be solved by
the policy Of non Intervention.
Mr.. Hall proposed as solution Of the ir-
rigation problem in California, that the State
shall assume control over the waters, and di.
rect and supervise their division from the
streams:
That all existing water privileges should
be defined and recorded:
That de6eite standard Of measurement
for water should be established:
That water rights should be issued in pro
portion to the supply in each stream, and
that the extent and priority of each claim
should be designated:
That provision should be made for super
vising TIE distribution of water from the
streams or sources Of supply, to those hold
ing water rights:
That provision soould be made for the care
of the beds, the banks, and the waters OF
the streams:
That the adjustment of the conflicting in
terests Of the irrigator and the riparian
claimant should be provided for as they arise:
That general regulations should be es,ab
lished from time to time, which will prevent
waste, and guard against water monopolies
and the careless use Of the fluid:
This D1an concentrates Stale regulation of