CALIFORNIA. 



105 



portion is utilized for irrigation. The rainfall 

 in the valley is so insufficient for agricultural 

 purposes that only one third of the valley land 

 is under cultivation. The rest is nearly all 

 good soil, hut for lack of moisture appears in 

 ordinary years like a vast desert. Oases have 

 been created wherever irrigation has been 

 practiced. Water diverted from Kern river 

 in numerous canals near Bakersfield, irrigates 

 more than 20,000 acres. About 80,000 acres 

 are irrigated by water diverted from King's 

 river, in canals having an aggregate maximum 

 capacity of 2,000 cubic feet a second ; prob- 

 ably 60,000 acres are supplied with water from 

 the San Joaquin and Merced rivers combined. 

 Kaweah and Tule river waters irrigate a com- 

 bined area of about 30,000 acres. The area 

 irrigated from Fresno, Chowchilla, and otber 

 rivers in the valley will probably aggregate 

 5,000 acres. There are then onl/ about 215,- 

 000 acres in the San Joaquin valley irrigated 

 by a water-supply that, at its lowest stage, 

 estimated from the base of the foot-hills, is 

 over 3,000 cubic feet a second. This amount 

 of water flowing continuously ought to irri- 

 gate a much greater area; but it by no means 

 forms the basis for an estimate of an upper 

 limit of the amount of land for which the 

 water-supply of the San Joaquin valley is 

 sufficient. Their aggregate flow during May, 

 June, and July, when the demand for irriga- 

 tion is greatest, averaged for the years 1879 

 to 1882 over 38,000 cubic feet a second. The 

 State Engineers estimate, in 1879, of the area 

 of land irrigated in the foot-hill counties, from 

 Tuolumne to Butte, is 9,000 acres. He esti- 

 mates the lands irrigated in 1879 from Cache 

 creek, by means of three canals, at 13,400 

 acres. Irrigation is not confined to the above- 

 named sections. The State Surveyor- General, 

 in his report of 1879-'80, gives the following 

 information : There are 2,225 acres of land ir- 

 rigated in Alpine county ; 7,450 acres in Inyo ; 

 15,000 acres in Lassen ; 24,000 acres in Modoc ; 

 4,000 acres in Plumas ; and 23,000 acres in Sis- 

 kiypu. Irrigation is being extended as fast as 

 capital for the construction of the necessary 

 works in each locality becomes available. A 

 State Irrigation Convention met at Fresno on 

 December 3d. Its object was to frame a bill 

 to be laid before the Legislature in January, 

 for the regulation of irrigation. Recent de- 

 cisions have been founded on the old common 

 law of riparian rights, which can not be ap- 

 plied in California without serious hardship to 

 many settlers. In the case of Miller & Lux vs. 

 Haggan, to restrain the latter from diverting 

 the water of Kern river, the Supreme Court 

 decided that the purchase from the State of 

 lands bordering on a water-course makes the 

 purchaser a riparian proprietor against subse- 

 quent appropriation. 



In the case of Lux vs. Haggan, a rehearing 

 was subsequently granted. The Fresno Con- 

 vention was in session several days. After a 

 full discussion, a committee was appointed to 



draft bills for submission to the Legislature, 

 embodying the following points: 



1. The adoption of the cubic foot per second as the 

 unit measurement throughout the State. 



2. The institution of a system of making all water- 

 rights a matter of proof and record. 



3. A declaration by the Legislature that all the waters 

 of the State in natural streams and lakes belong to the 

 neoplej and are subject to appropriation by the people 

 for irrigation, mining, manufacturing, and other use- 

 ful purposes. 



4. To provide the machinery for the voluntary for- 

 mation of irrigation districts by which the owners of 

 land may acquire water-rights, and assess the lands for 

 the purpose of constructing canals, ditches, or other 

 irrigation-works, or for purchasing those already con- 

 structed ; provided, that waters already appropriated 

 shall thereafter be utilized as at present, through ex- 

 isting works, or the extension of the same, so far as 

 may be necessary for the irrigation of lands dependent 

 thereon ; and further provided, that no lands shall be 

 taxed for the construction of works of irrigation except 

 lands actually to be irrigated by said works. 



5. So t to extend the law of eminent domain as to al- 

 low an irrigation district, or a corporation outside of 

 an irrigation district, to condemn and pay for rights 

 of way, lands, canal districts, and water-claims, and 

 rights of whatever nature, held by any person or cor- 

 poration, or any other private rights 01 property, how- 

 ever existing or acquired, or by whatever name desig- 

 nated, which may be necessary for the appropriation 

 or use of water ; provided, that in condemning water 

 used at the time of the commencement of an action for 

 the same a manifest greater public interest shall be 

 shown ; that the irrigation district with power is 

 denned as the sub-district within the hydrographic 

 district, while the hydrographic district is one with- 

 out condemning power, out with regulation power 

 only. 



6. To provide for a thorough and complete annual 

 accounting for all the waters used by any and all dis- 

 tricts or companies, and for a proper distribution of 

 the waters of any stream between the appropriators, 

 and for such other police regulations .as may be neces- 

 sary. 



Debris Question. On January 7th the United 

 States Circuit Court decided the case of Wood- 

 ruff vs. The North Bloomfield Gravel Mining 

 Company and others. The opinion was by 

 Judge Sawyer, concurred in by Judge Deady. 

 This was a bill in equity to restrain the de- 

 fendants, engaged in hydraulic mining, from 

 discharging debris into the affluents of Yuba 

 river, to be carried down into Sacramento and 

 Feather rivers, filling up their channels, injur- 

 ing navigation, overflowing and covering the 

 adjacent lands with debris, and injuring and 

 threatening to destroy the lands and property 

 of the complainant and other land-owners on 

 and adjacent to the banks of those streams. 

 The suit was begun in September, 1882, and 

 the testimony was taken in June, July, and 

 August, 1883. The opinion of Judge Sawyer 

 is very long. All the conclusions are clearly 

 stated, and are in favor of the valley, main- 

 taining its right to full protection from injury 

 by hydraulic mining, and denying that any 

 rights, by prescription or by grant, express or 

 implied, from the State or United States, have 

 been acquire^ on the part of the miners to 

 prosecute the industry of mining in such man- 

 ner as to produce injury to the navigable 

 streams and destruction and injury to lands 



