THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



of the channel, conveying water to more than one share- 

 holder, is to be considered part of the common channel, * 

 and all shareholders are to be responsible for its com- 

 plete maintenance. Where any watercourse branches 

 off for the land of one shareholder alone, that water- 

 course would not be common, but belong wholly to 

 that shareholder, and he alone would have to main- 

 tnin it: no other could be called on to help in its cost. 

 This principle is now generally recognized everywhere 

 as the only reasonable and efficient way of working lat- 

 erals. In India it is not clearly laid down yet, by 

 laws or regulations, but it is usually acted on; though 

 often enough it is resisted successfully by powerful men, 

 who take water from the upper portions of a lateral, 

 where the irrigators lower down are unable to influ- 

 ence them, and will not seek the aid of the canal 

 authorities for fear of arousing the enmity of their 

 more powerful neighbors. But it is very clearly the 

 only principle that can be fairly allowed in justice to 

 all shareholders; and none are overburdened in compari- 

 son with others. It may sometimes appear necessary 

 to modify it in cases where the land at the upper end 

 is high and not readily commanded by the water, while 

 the land lower down lies low and is well commanded 

 at all times. But even in such cases no modification is 

 required or would be fair. For when it is the turn 

 of the higher land to take water the whole supply 

 can then be given it; and though the land may be so 

 high as to allow of only a slight grade or slope in the 

 water surface from the lateral head on to it, yet this 

 whole supply will irrigate it in a reasonable time, where- 

 as a partial small supply never would. The time al- 

 lowed for the turn would, of course, have to be longer 

 than that for lower lying lands towards which there 

 would be a greater velocity of the water in the lateral, 

 and so a greater quantity of water-flow in a given time, 

 but the share in the cost of maintenance would not 

 then depend on the time of the turn, but on the area 

 of land irrigated, and the quantity of water used. The 

 owner of the high land would thus very largely benefit 

 by there being many other shareholders in the lateral, 

 and should, of course, help them in maintaining their 

 longer channel, as their larger supply of water helps 

 him. He can irrigate more land and do it more effi- 

 'ciently and rapidly by being one of many shareholders 

 in a large lateral, than he could if he had only a small, 

 separate, short lateral of his own. Experience has 

 clearly shown that but little can be done with a con- 

 tinuous small supply, in comparison with what can be 

 done with the same total quantity of water used in 

 a larger body for a shorter time. 



As these shareholders who take water from the 

 upper portion of a lateral so evidently benefit from 

 there being other shareholders lower down, it is clearly 

 only just and proper for the former to join with the 

 latter in the maintenance of the channel further down. 

 And no way of apportioning to each his share in the 

 cost of maintenance can be found so practical and fair 

 as the extremely simple one of considering as com- 

 mon channels, for the maintenance of which all share- 

 holders in the lateral are jointly responsible, all por- 

 tions of the lateral which convey water to more than 

 one shareholder; and of apportioning to each a share 

 in the cost according to the quantity of water each 

 uees; which again will be usually according to the 

 area; of land each irrigates. This will be true mutual' 

 co-operation both in the benefits of irrigation, and in the 

 cost and trouble of obtaining those benefits. 



But it may happen that when some clearance or 

 repairs must be promptly carried out, some of the 

 shareholders will refuse to join the others in doing 

 the required work; it may be, because they have other 

 urgent work in hand or even from sheer obstinacy. As 

 they cannot be allowed either to delay the work by 

 making the others wait their convenience or whims, 

 or to escape bearing their fair share of the work, if 

 the others do it without their help it becomes neces- 

 sary to provide legislation to insure such cases being 

 properly attended to so that irrigation shall not suffer. 

 In the Northern India Canal Act, No. VIII., of 1873, 

 this matter is efficiently dealt with. It is enacted in 

 Section 19 thai; when the necessary maintenance of 

 any watercourse is not being d6ne, any shareholder may 

 apply to the officer in charge of the canal, stating the 

 case. The canal officer will then issue notice to all 

 the shareholders to attend on a certain day that he 

 may investigate the case. He does so on that day, no 

 matter how few of the shareholders may attend, and 

 if he considers that the work is necessary, he may issue 

 an order directing it to be done at once. Such share- 

 holders as are willing to get the work done can then 

 at once get it carried out, eithes by themselves, by hired 

 labor, or by contract work. When completed an ac- 

 count of the total cost is given to the canal officer with 

 a statement of expenditures incurred by each who has 

 contributed. He then apportions the total cost among 

 the shareholders according to their shares,, and directs 

 all who have not contributed their share to pay up 

 within a certain time; and then such as have contributed 

 more than their share are recouped for the excess in- 

 curred by them. Should any one not pay up as ordered, 

 the money is recovered from him by process of law. 

 If the shareholders who institute the proceedings are 

 not in a position to do the- work themselves, or bear 

 the cost of it, the canal officer may, on their request, 

 get the work done himself, by hired labor or contract, 

 and then recover the cost from the shareholders as 

 stated above. 



This procedure proves prompt and effective; and 

 the people freely avail themselves of it. In India, the 

 canals being mostly owned and administered by govern- 

 ment, such legislation is readily provided. But in 

 America, with privately owned canals, the difficulty of 

 getting such legislation provided by a State may be 

 considerable. The canal management must then have 

 recourse to by-laws ; which can be arranged to suit the 

 requirements of each canal. Before being given a share 

 in a lateral,' and a right to take water from it, each 

 would-be irrigator should be required to sign a com- 

 mon agreement for the lateral, binding themselves to 

 abide Joy and to carry out the principles explained. 

 In the case of irrigation already established it may be 

 difficult to get perverse or obstinate shareholders to 

 agree to these conditions, in their ignorance of the 

 benefits to be derived from mutual co-operation, but 

 by leaving them severely alone, to receive only their 

 small share of the supply continuously, instead of be- 

 ing allowed a turn in the whole supply, they should 

 soon find out their mistake. ' Public opinion and social 

 pressure may also often be brought to bear on them; 

 and as each such ease can only be treated on its own 

 merits, no general advice can be given; there will gen- 

 erally be found some means of inducing refractory pec- 

 pie to see that their own best interests will be in a 

 line with the public good. But in the case of new 

 irrigation the way is clear and the remedy prompt and 

 efficient. 



