The record-union., 1893-03-10
WORTH LOOKING INTO.
This section occurs in the omnibus
county government bill:

This section occurs in the omnibus
county government bill:
Section 54 The board may provide for wild
ening, deepening, Strengthening, removing OBJ
structions from, and otherwise improving all
streams within the county for use as public
highways, for rafting and floating lumber,
and also protecting the banks and adjacent
lands from oUerJTolO Of such streams, when
the same are not declared by law to be, and,
in fact, are not navigable for commercial pur-
poses; and provide regulations for the use, re-
pair and control thereof but no regulations
OF the board, nor improvements directed,
must In any manner interfere with the pri-
Vate rights or privileges of riparian owners,
miners or others. Whenever, IN the opinion 0f
The Board Of Supervisors, The general fund is
a1lsD0tcteIlt to dcfrGy The cost Of The Improve
?Rents provided for 9JfdeT this section, they mag,
teUg tar or contract q bonded Indebtedness
therefor IN The manner prorided 6y this Act.
The words in italics are the amend
ments the bill makes to the present law
and indicate the purposes of the amend
ments.
This section confers on county Super
visors great, almost unlimited, powers
in one direction. 1t may be wise to adopt
the section, but grave doubt has strong
ground for another view.
AS rule, private betterment of lands
should not be had at public expense.
Notably private property should not be
reclaimed at public cost. This section
appears, however, to confer upon Super
visors the power to treat non-navigable
streams in order to reclaim private lands;
likewise to aid private enterprises using
streams.
The section is one that the Legislature
should very carefully analyze before
adopting. Section 81 provides for admit
ting the question of bond issuance to the
vote of the people in addition to proceed
ings required by Section 26 lit should
read "Section 36'-evidently an error.
But is it well to justify any procedure tc
such ends as appear in Section "a?
Is it wise or necessary to put the I'M
provement of rivers into the hands O
Supervisors to enable them to be used as
public highways, or to vest in the board
the power to treat the banks of streams
so as to protect adjacent lands from
overflow?"
Should not all lands to be benefited by
such reclamation bear the whole cost o
the improvement, and not visit any of i
upon the people of the county at large
Let US suppose a county where major
ity vote is within the area of low-lyinl
lands. Under this section such voters
could fasten upon unbenefted high land!
throughout the whole county nearly thu
whole burden of cost of reclamation, be
cause the high lands would represent tht
greatest assessable value, and the over
flowed lands represent but a trifle of tax
able values until protected from over
flow.
Possibly in some sections the who'll
people are so interested in and related t,
numbering and logging that treating
stream as a highway for numbering pur
poses may be conservation of the inter
ests of all, but this section goes beyont
that and it would seem unnecessarily sc
In this county it would open the door
the treatment of the Consumes, th
American, the Mokelumne and som
lesser streams, at enormous cost, to pro
tect low lands in one case and aid loggin
in another The subject is one wort
very careful investigation, and ought t
be passed upon with great deliberation.