Imperial Valley press., 1908-06-13
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY FOR
 PETITIoNINe SETTLERS.
Contention That Present Contracts of Mutual Companies do not Propect Individual Farmers - Question of Legality of Existing System May be Brought Into Courts.

Settlers in district No. 9, dissatisfied with the terms on which the C., D. Co. offers to supply them with water for the reclamation of their lands, and questioning the right of the company to require the purchase of stock in @ mutual company, at a price fixed by the c. D. O., as a condition precedent to the purchase of water, have peti- toned the Board of Supervisors to es- tablish the rate at which water shall be sold to all irrigators in Imperial County.
 If the Supervisors comply with the demand, the whole matter of water supply and water stock is likely to be brought up for adjustment, probably in the courts, and the relations of the c. D. Go. and the land owneds of the valley may be changed materially.
 J. B. Eldridge, attorney for the peti- tioners, makes the following statement of the case:
 1t would appear to me, that what the farmers of Imperial Valley want to know most, is, how would it affect the users of water should the Board of Supervisors set the rate. Under the present system the mutual companies obtain water on contracts made with a corporation that is not user of water or owner of land in Imperial Valley, and under said con- tracts the individual farmer and user of water has no recourse in law to compel the c. D. Company or it's child, the MeXi- can Co.,, to furnish water to the individ- ual farmer. In case of the failure or re- fusal of said c. D. Co. to furnish water to the farmers, the individual farmer cannot sue the c. D. Co. on said con- tracts, either to compel said company to furnish water or for damages for the failure to furnish water. The individual farmer is no, d party to the contract and the mutual company, not being an owner of land, cannot be damaged and cannot sue for damages.
 Assuming that no one will question the right of the Supervisors under the law to set the rate at which water shall be sold to the users of water in Imperial Valley, a corporation furnishing water, by reason of it's quasi-public character, is
 
 the rate established by the Board of Su- pervisors. And should such corporation refuse to sell water at such rates as es- tablished on demand therefor by any n- dividual farmer within the flow of such company's canal, then instantly the indi- vidual farmer could ask for mandate of court to compel said company to furnish water at such rate and collect damages I, oF NI,ir, 4,, every man a right to the use of water and a means of enforcing such right Further, if such rates be established there cannot be any more contracts entered for the sale of so-called water rights that will not be voidable at the instance of either party to the contracts because such contracts will be in direct deToga- ton and contrayention of q specific eta tute
 The elementary principle and basis up on which all contracts are based is, that two or more competent persons may con tract to do or not to do a lawful thing not an unlawful thing. Under the exist ing conditions in this valley, the farmers have no water rights other than which is implied under the law. None of the con- tractural rights are worth the paper they are written upon
 The framers of the Constitution of this State and the legislators who enacted the act of 1885, in substance in the language of the Supreme Court of this State and of the Supreme Court of the United States, wisely foresaw that somewhere should be lodged the power to establish rates at which water should be sold so that op- pression might be relieved" The peti- tioners feel that the burden sought to be imposed is too great and that justice de-