THE IRRIGATION AGE. 191 



time the appropriation was made, but not for the purpose of irrigating 

 land subsequently cultivated. (Brown v. Baker, 65 Pac. Rep., 799.) 

 The rule herein stated, on which the decision rests, is this: "The 

 -first settler upon public land, through which a stream of water flows, 

 may either divert the wa.ter and use it for a beneficial purpose or ex- 

 ercise the common law right prevailing in the Pacific coast states, 

 where the modified rule of riparian ownership is still in force, and in- 

 sist that the stream shall flow in its natural channel undiminished in 

 quantity, except when applied to the natural use of the upper riparian 

 proprietors and for irrigation, if the stream affords a sufficient quan- 

 tity of water for this purpose. The right of appropriation is incom- 

 patible with the doctrine of riparian proprietorship." 



STATE CONTROL. 



The state may maintain mandamus to compel an irrigation com- 

 pany to construct bridges over highways obstructed by its ditches. 

 (State v. Irrigation Co. (Kan.), 65 Pac. Rep., 681.) 



THE CALIFORNIA RULE STATUTES OF PACIFIC STATES. 



The system of irrigation in California is, in some respects, pecu- 

 liar; but the fundamental principles of the common law are preserved 

 in a modified form, and it is still held that the right of a riparian pro 

 prietor to the flow of a stream of water over his land is an incident of 

 his property in the land, is annexed to the land, and considered part 

 and parcel of it. But it may be severed from the land by grant, con- 

 -demnation or prescription. (Gould v. Stafford, 91 Cal., 146.) 



An analysis and comparison of the various statutes cannot fail to 

 reveal interesting points. 



