The San Francisco call., 1899-10-19
FLOOD WaTER OWNERSHIP.

THE water storage convention to be held in this
city on the 18th OF next month promises to be
the means OF very useful enlightenment upon
many very interesting subjects. 1t is called to
sder the storage OF non-freshet waters nor amend
or change existing riparian rights to interfere
in any way with existing water ownership and
methods OF distribution That ownership under
riparian law may be right wrong The law for
distributing the normal flow OF water in streams may
be good OF bad Neither concerns the convention.
It will not seek to disturb contracts made by ditch
companies for the sale OF water. 1t has interest
in the appropriation by individuals corporations
OF mountain lakes natural reservoirs 1t will say
to all existing OF getting and using water, Go
ahead; get all you and put it to use; the State
needs it,
The convention is concerned solely with something
that nobody is getting now, something that it is de-
cided cannot be got by private or corporate enter
prise-something that is lost, wasted and unused,
when its conservation and would multiply the
resources OF the State for power and irrigation.
This something is the flood water, the surplus that
falls in the rainy season and Immediately back
into the ocean and is lost This water does not be-
long to the riparian owner. His right is limited to
the ordinary flow OF the stream The storing OF
food water does not abridge his right nficts no
damage upon him and cannot be enjoined in his in
terest because he is not damnihed thereby. These
principles are confirmed by a long line OF judicial
DECISIONS The riparian owner has title to the
corpus OF the flood water To whom, then does it
belong? We hold that under just Interpretation of
the rights OF sovereignty it belongs the State 1t
is property, an asset OF the State In the absence
OF a statute regulating its public ownership it may
be udically distributed to necessary by court,
but it is the property of the State
The people who favor Federal storage policy
in effect demand that the State abandon this valu-
able asset to the United States that the State sur
render it to political sovereignty which the State
cannot control! Suppose that after this were done
the process OF educating the East lags or fails We
will then be in the position OF having given away
an asset worth many millions which the donee refuses
to and which we cannot recover to our own use.
The proposition is a dangerous one The people of
California should deny that their property in food
waters is donabe to the United States but should
be subjected to economic use as rapidly as possible
In this view of State ownership the subject Of dis
tribution is lifted upon plane entirely, where
it is unfettered and unvexed by the methods neces-
sary to riparian ownership
Also when the idea OF State ownership is fully
taken in, the charge OF State socialism or communism
IS answered and disproved. The State having the
sole right to this food water, because none other
can in the nature OF things own it. has free field
for its conservation and distribution 1t Is not pa
ternalism nor socialism, 1t is the devotion of State
property TO the economic uses and benefit of the
people.