Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1896-11-21

The people of California, and ~.
bers of her legislative bodv -uenl'
in the nature of things, be mora g. must
with the facts and circumstances n..a
surround the subject, and with tbo "4lcA
sites and occasion for the irriyat,o" tvs
lands, than can any one be VIII
stranger to her soil. This knou,o,
and familiarity must have tho,r
weight with state courts which oro
pass upon the question Of public nso ~
the light of the facts which surroy..
the subject in their own state. For
reasons, while not regarding the root.s'
as concluded by these various doo,oss
tons and acts and decisions of the noon,.
the legislature and the courts Of Gu
fornia, yet, in considering the suhioo.
accord to and treat them with very groo.
respect, and we regard the decisions
as embodying the deliberate Judgment
and matured thought of the courts ~
that state on this subject. Viewing tba
subject for ourselves and in the light of
these considerations, we have very little
difficulty in coming to the same conclg.
sion as reached by the courts of Califor.
MIA.
The use must be regarded as public
use, or else it would seem TO follow that
no general scheme of irrigation can be
formed or carried into effect"
An Important Consideration.
Continuing on this line, Justice Peck.
ham said:
While the consideration that the work of irrl.
cation must be abandoned if the use of the
water may not be held to be or constitute a
public use, it is not to be regarded con-
elusive in favor of such USE yet that fact is In
this case a most important consideration.
Millions of acres of land otherwise cultiyatable
must be left in their present arid and worth
less condition and an obstacle will therefore
remain in the way of the advance OF portion
of the state in material wealth and prosperity.
To irrigate and thus to bring into possible cul-
tivation the large masses of otherwise worth.
less lands would seem Ito be public pur-
pose, and a matter of pubic interest not con-
fined to the landowners or even 10 any one
section of the state. The fact that the use
Of water is limited to the landowner Is there
fore not a fatal objection to this legislation
II is not essential that the entire community
or even any considerable portion Thereon should
directly participate in an improvement IN or
der to constitute a public use Lana owner
have right to a proporlonate snare VI uS
water and no one land owner is favored over
his fellow in the right of the use Of water j
is necessary in order that the use shouia q
public. every resident in the state shoulu nav
the right to use of the water.
Referring to the objections that uhaei
the act the irrigation Of LANDS shoui'
not be limited to those which are IN lac
unproductive, the opinion says:
The legislature by this act has not itsel
named any irrigation district ana Vi S vou'o !
has not decided as to the nature ana qua.,y !"
anv specific lands which have beeh lhciuueu =
any such district. 1t has given d sen'i :,
statement as to what condition must exist y
order to permit the inclusion OF any .ar,
within a district. The land when can pt t
erly be so included is, as we thlnh' su1s
iently limited in it's character by tls Pr - ~,
ions of the act 1t must be suscep'lni ...oa oni
mode of irrigation, from common SUM- t ~
NV the same system of works ana IL mus 81 "
of such a character that 1t VIII pe 1 9tad
by irrigation by the system 10 NC ooun
This. as we think, means tnat lI' ~ lin
of benefit must be substantial an n us
tied to the creation of an opportulltyo uoofter
the land for a new kind of crop ' heis ,l
while not substantially benefiting II los -, rduc
tivation of the old kind. which 1t haa pl luo
ed in reasonable quantities ana VIZ Ia ~ ar
certainty and success without tie ,tbor an,
tificial irrigation. The question WhetHG :, nac
particular land would thus De
essarily one of the act. .4r,ction
On the subject or true conStA ,,s
the act, the court considered the W.
ton as to whether there is any op atio
tunitv provided for a hearing upon ~
to land owners interested in the paet
ton, whether their lands will DC p' ohio
ed by the proposed irrigation, re"s wa,
the conclusion that the right 10 tive
ing in regard to all these factors - hoa
by the act, that it has practicalis
so constructed by the supreme c0ui'
California. 40 Ian
The act provides for a hearing , Oh imS thl
owner. both as to the question Wleod crcu
land will be benefited by the propoIaseod IN IA
lation. and when that has been dec t T.,a1uatlo
vor of benefit, upon the question o. iaod in tn
and assessment upon his land lnciI .istrict ca
district AS to other matters the ,ndv on
be created without notice to anytr,,ed wit
conclusion is that the act as co CO... ,,nder TIL
reference to the objects considered ui'N
third head is unassailable.
POPULAR LOAN ovER-sUBsCHl0l'