The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1905-02-08
IRRIGATION Law HAS
WORKED WELL ELSEWHERE
A. T. Richardson's Views on the Situa-
ton With Regard to New Low from
Farmers Standpoint.
North Yakima, Feb. 9th.


the proposed law will affect any private
ambitions or corporate interests, and
don't think care to study into that
question; those things ought to yield
right of way entirely to the interests
of the user of water.
There is undoubtedly one very good
reason for the farmers not having been
heard from; they do not know the cir
cumstances. The farmer is the most
suspicious of men, yet he shows q sub
lime faith in the virtues of "deed"
and an abstract" to make him all right.
In the case of his land, he has the ben
eft Of a system of thousand years
growth; he has nothing to be at all COM
pared to this in the case of his water.
The old irrigators who have perhaps
been through a few lawsuits in defence
of their water, probably think they have
reached final settlement Of their rights,
and that therefore everything is to be
risked and nothing gained by any
change. But they can have the best the
law can at present give them, without
having very much.
It is chiefly, however, the new corners
that I have in mind; those who have
been and are coming in large numbers
from states where irrigation is not
practiced, VINO know nothing at oil Of
how their rights in a full half of their
new property here-their water-ar, Sc.
cured. 1t is not easy for a new conner
to pick up such knowledge. He may
wade through columns of fine print or
codes and amendments, and yet not feel
that he knows what it is all about.
When first came here, a couple of years
ago, I met with this same difficulty, /
asked my neighbors what was the law,
and NONE of them could tell me. None
of them seemed to know; so I studied
the subject a little myself, and came to
the conclusion that nobody else knew
either; that there is nothing fit to he
called law in the state of Washington
to protect the irrigation farmer in his
water property. I will state the case
Is it appears to me, for the information
of my fellow farmers, especially the 'ate
corners, and then the lawyers can do
what they choose to me for butting IN
on their province.
First, as to the present law, system or
theory, whichever it can be called, it
consists of three parts:
First-The doctrine of riparian owner
ship. This our fathers brought from
England, along with the rest of the laws
of the time, before the Revolution. There
was no irrigation in England, of course,
and the law was merely designed to pro-
tect nobleman in the right of fishing
in stream that ran by his estates.
1t is queer-ridiculous in fact-that it
should now be governing state of
things so very different here.
Second-The doctrine of appropria-
tions. This comes from the early days
of mining in the west, when earth, wa
ter and air were alike free to all and
there was plenty for everybody. a
man was allowed to stake off his loca-
ton wherever he choose and claim water
to work it, and the air l believe was
thrown in. 1t was not expected that
anyone would appropriate land that did
not exist, and water was not thought
worth anything, so no restrictions were
imposed. The custom merely grew up
by common understanding. Under this
system, which, like the first, was not
meant for anything like our present cir
cumstances, all the water in any stream
can lawfully be appropriated many
times over, and this has in fact been
done; the law looks on at the accum-
ulating mischief and has nothing to
say, and there is no one to say what
ones of the hundreds of recorded claims
are good. This means trouble hereaf-
ter for the irrigator; certainly lawsuits,
and very likely condition like that in
California, where litigation money is
said to be as much part of the regu-
lar yearly expenses as taxes.
Third-Cour decisions, mainly from
California, where judges have had to try
to build up reasonable system on such
singular foundation as these two in
appropriate doctrines. There has been
some help, but not much, from the law
making bodies; they have always fought
shy of the question.
The objects of the new law are:
70 abolish riparian rights. The water
is to be owned by the land that uses it,
not by the occupant of the river bank
nor any ditch company. A ditch com
panv can carry it, as railroad carries
freight, and makes a reasonable charge
for the service. An actual user of water
OF making a proper showing, will receive
Dositiye certificate of ownership from