IRRIGATION PRINCIPLES. 



ii 



community continued to be administered as a primi- 

 tive irrigation district, for the common good of its 

 people. 



California adopted the common law in 1850, when 

 it first became a State. As written in my former 

 article of this set, the right of water appropriation 

 became fixed as a custom in mining practice, and was 

 thence extended by custom to irrigation and sanc- 

 tioned by the courts of the State. Local communities 

 of irrigators in the nature of free associations were 

 formed by the Mormons in San Bernardino Valley in 

 1857^ 



But it was not until 1872 that, under the title of 

 "An Act to Promote Irrigation," the first California 

 irrigation district law was passed. It applied to the 

 State, omitting four principal counties, which were 

 excepted from its action on demand of their repre- 

 sentatives in legislature. Under its provisions : 

 Districts might be formed, on petition of the owners of 

 land to be affected, by approval of county boards of 

 supervisors. By-laws for the internal government of 

 each such district were to be adopted by " the votes 

 or consent of a majority of the owners of the lands 

 within the district," and had to be " signed by the 

 persons owning a majority of the land within the dis- 

 trict." Money to construct works was to be raised 

 by "assessment of benefits '' on the land in the dis- 

 trict; which assessment was to be made by a com- 

 mission named by the county supervisors following 

 the estimate and request of the trustees of the dis- 

 trict. The amount assessed on each piece of land, 

 immediately on the commission filing its report, be- 

 came a lien on the property, and had to be paid into 

 the county treasury within thirty days, or was there- 

 after collectable on civil suit by the county attorney. 

 The works were to be carried out by the district 

 trustees, who were to draw their warrants on the 

 fund in the county treasury in payment for the same. 

 This was a very short, simple though crude law; but 

 was never put into operation. Nevertheless, it con- 

 tained some features afterward embodied in more 

 aspiring and effective legislation, and some princi- 

 ples which should have been but were not similarly 

 adopted. 



In April, 1876, the legislature passed a special act 

 to create an irrigation district to be called the " West 

 Side Irrigation District." This was a long, elaborate 

 and carefully drawn law, the work of an able legal 

 firm; but, as its name shows, was enacted for the 

 formation of one district only. Having specified the 

 territory to be embraced and affected, this law pro- 

 vided: 



(1) For the election of a board of -commissioners 

 and other officers, such as assessor and tax collector. 

 (2) For the acceptance of the law by ballot of " the 

 qualified voters," and for other elections on the same 

 basis; (3) for the issue and sale of bonds to raise a 

 construction fund; (4) for the levy and collection of 

 taxes to pay interest and principal of bonds; (5) for 

 exercise of the power of eminent domain by the com- 

 missioners; (6) for the collection of tolls, water rates 

 and assessments for purposes of maintenance and 

 operation of works; (7) for the construction and 

 operation of the works by the commissioners; (8) for 

 the redemption of the bonds; and, (9) for the general 

 management of the affairs of the district by the com- 

 missioners. As stated, the elections were based on 

 manhood suffrage the ballot being cast by " the 

 legally qualified voters." The construction fund 

 raised from sale of bonds, was to be placed in the 

 State treasury, and thence transferred to the district 



treasury, as required. Taxes collected for interest 

 on and redemption of principal of bonds, were to be 

 deposited in the State treasury, and such interest and 

 principal were to be paid thence by the State treas- 

 urer. But the State was not in any way to be respon- 

 sible for the debts of the district. All property, real 

 and personal, was subjected to taxation for payment 

 of interest and principal of the bonds. 



This law was never operated, owing to the opposi- 

 tion of the principal land owners in the district, and 

 the supreme court declared it inoperative on tech- 

 nical grounds. 



THE GREAT WATER-RIGHTS CONFLICT. 



From 1878 to 1886 California was shaken by the 

 great irrigation .water rights and hydraulic mining 

 debris conflicts. In the former year an act providing 

 for an investigation of those subjects was passed. 

 Of the working and results of this law, as relating to 

 irrigation, I shall speak in a later paper. After its 

 passage, for five sessions the legislature was divided 

 into hotly contending factions on the mentioned 

 points at issue, and beset by a lobby the like of which 

 for activity and persistency, at least, probably was 

 never surpassed. 



Propositions of all kinds relating to irrigation were 

 advanced, only to be refused passage choked to 

 death in committee, or left unconsidered on the files. 

 At least one irrigation district bill was introduced 

 at every session; and some of these were most care- 

 fully prepared and arranged as parts of proposed 

 systems, believed, in the light of extended investiga- 

 tion, to meet every requirement of irrigation devel- 

 opment as these had shown themselves in older coun- 

 tries. Meanwhile, the courts disposed of the two 

 great questions at issue. Hydraulic mining as then 

 practiced was declared to damage private property 

 on streams below, and was stopped by injunction. 

 The irrigation water-rights question was decided in 

 favor of the riparian proprietors as against the appro- 

 priators. 



Thus, when the legislative session of 1887 came, 

 the hydraulic mining and water appropriation fac- 

 tions had given up their fights, and the way was 

 cleared of personal and class conflicts and opened 

 for general irrigation legislation. Many of the hold- 

 over and returned members of legislature, however, 

 and the public press, were suspicious of every per- 

 son who had participated in the former -struggles, 

 however conservatively, and no matter how fair and 

 wise his course had been. Thus the opportunity was 

 presented for new champions of irrigation to come to 

 the front. The supreme court in one of its riparian 

 rights decisions had intimated that the water-rights 

 conflict should be settled by providing for condemn- 

 ing riparian and other conflicting rights, and paying 

 for them. 



Under these circumstances the bill which has since 

 become famous as the California irrigation district 

 law was introduced, simultaneously, into the senate 

 by Mr. Abbot and into the assembly by Mr. Wright. 

 It was first considered and voted to passage in the 

 assemblv, went to the senate, was substituted for that 

 of Mr. Abbot on the file, and became a law with Mr. 

 Wright's name attached as its author. In the condi- 

 tion of affairs described, the legislature was ready to 

 pass anything that purported to be for the benefit of 

 irrigation and which was shaped to avoid the preju- 

 dices of the older members. The Abbot-Wright bill 

 was so shaped. It was fixed to pass. If it was not 

 all it should be, let it go; it could be amended or 



