IRRIGATION PRINCIPLES; 



V. CONTROL ENTERPRISE. 



AUTOCRACY AND SOCIALISM IN IRRIGATION. 



BY WM. HAM. HALL, MEM. AM. SOC. C. E. 



THE word autocrat is not here used in the slightest 

 degree offensively. The absolute control, in 

 practice, though in theory and in law there may 

 be checks and limitations provided, of that which is 

 a necessity of life to a population, by one or several 

 associated persons owning the means of supply, and 

 the distribution of that necessary article under rules 

 with the establishment of which the people served 

 have no voice, by agents in the naming of whom the 

 served have no choice, and in a manner primarily to 

 suit the interest and for the profit of the owners of 

 supply works, is surely an autocratic function. It 

 may be exercised in a kindly, liberal spirit. But that 

 does not alter the case or principle. The liberality 

 may be present one year and gone the next, as owners 

 or managers change. 



The fact is that the irrigation cultivator's crop is 

 largely at the mercy of the canal management. In 

 ways that are difficult to appreciate except by ex- 

 perience, any one or a set of irrigators under one 

 work may be much damaged by tricky management; 

 or incompetency or neglect on the part of the man- 

 agement may well near ruin a whole community, and 

 still there would be no practicable redress. The case 

 is different in essential particulars from those of 

 water and gas supplying in a city. In these latter 

 the commodity is constantly on tap in the consumer's 

 premises. He takes what he wants and pays for 

 what he uses. This can never be the case in irriga- 

 tion water distribution but in the rarest instances, not 

 here to be considered. Almost without exception the 

 irrigation cultivator receives water only when willed 

 by the canal management, under some system more 

 or less liberal in itself, and subject to liberal or il- 

 liberal, efficient or inefficient, administration. 



The management of water delivery and distribu- 

 tion to irrigating customers by private corporations 

 or canal owners in this way is essentially and neces- 

 sarily autocratic. There are two interests which 

 almost invariably think themselves in antagonism, and 

 often are so the supplyer and the applyer of water. 

 The practice is one which unavoidably gives rise to 

 many conflicts, and can be made by either party to 

 keep the other in constant turmoil. In recounting the 

 early history of irrigation in Italy, it has been written, 

 " There are no other occupations which seem to de- 

 velop the baser traits of human nature to a single end, 

 quite so much as those which depend on the use of 

 water furnished for rental by some one else, except 

 the occupation of furnishing it.'' 



Everywhere in older countries irrigation develop- 

 ment and practice have brought their conflicts, and 

 in every instance except where the strong arm of 

 government establishment has extended over a sub- 

 servient and non-progressive people, autocratic 

 ruling has, in course of time, given way to, or been 

 forced to compromise with, the socialistic principle in 

 community control. The result seems to be inevita- 

 ble. If there is anything in the teaching of history 

 this rule should be accepted: Uncontrolled specu- 

 lative irrigation water management does not long 

 exist; the users of water in irrigation will in the end 

 control distribution to themselves. Remember, we 



*A11 rights reserved by the author. 



are looking at the subject broadly, and not only for 

 to-day, as it were. 



Nor is it strange that this result should always come 

 about, when we consider that the very nature of the 

 practice sometimes brings hardship to the water users, 

 which they always attribute to fault on the part of 

 the supplying company. It matters not how diligent, 

 fair and accommodating an irrigation canal adminis- 

 tration may be, the farmer whose crop suffers, or who 

 is inconvenienced by not getting water as he needs 

 it, though the supplying him to meet his necessities 

 or suit his whims were a matter of impossibility, still 

 holds the company management responsible in his 

 thought. These feelings, cumulating throughout the 

 population, can lead to but one result the taking 

 and management of the works, under some arrange- 

 ment, by the people served, and this is always done 

 under some form of community or district organiza- 

 tion. 



THE LOGIC OF CONTROL. 



The recognition of this uncontrollable tendency has 

 long ago resulted, in all European irrigation coun- 

 tries, in the rule that in granting irrigation water 

 rights and canal concessions to companies, the irri- 

 gators or land owners under each, must first be or- 

 ganized into a community, then be made a party to 

 the concession, be given certain privileges toward 

 controlling sub-distribution, and at the end of the 

 period of concession, generally twenty to fifty years, 

 the works and all rights are to go to the community 

 as its property. 



Then, too, where the autocracy of the water or 

 canal company and the socialism of the irrigation 

 community are thus brought into relations, the gov- 

 ernment administration forms a mediating and con- 

 trolling third party to the arrangement. The com- 

 pany, virtually, becomes a contractor, to build, 

 maintain and operate certain works for a stipulated 

 period of time, in consideration of certain water rates 

 being paid by the community, and the government 

 sees that each party carries out its part of the con- 

 tract. 



The necessity for the controlling third party is here 

 based, be it observed, not on solicitude for the com- 

 munity interest alone. The contracting company or 

 syndicate has been given a concession, on the basis 

 of which it invests its money to get what is considered 

 a fair return. The government, though it may assume 

 no financial responsibility whatever, protects the 

 company by undertaking and reserving the right in 

 the articles of concession, to force the community to 

 comply with its part of the contract. 



Herein we find the spirit of control carried to its 

 utmost extent. What has been the reason for it? 

 Simply that even where bound together on the 

 basis of government concession and by a contract 

 which has been fully considered in every detail, 

 the two discordant elements of irrigation develop- 

 ment the autocratic management and the socialis- 

 tic irrigator will fly asunder, and combative human 

 nature will still seek to avoid paying debts when it 

 fancies itself aggrieved or can conjure up some self- 

 satisfying reason for the action. 



83 



