THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



295 



tical benefits to be achieved, progress to be made, and 

 in bringing that about, conflicting interests, diverse laws, 

 vexatious controversies must be smoothed over, settled, 

 provided against, or put beyond the possibility of doing 

 harm. It is no small labor to weld conflicting irriga- 

 tion interests into a homogeneous mass that will work 

 smoothly. But it must be done, otherwise the work 

 will be of small avail, of little profit, and the gnats. 

 the rats, and the petty disturbers of the peace of the 

 home seekers will continue their underhand, nefarious 

 work, and render inoperative (except for themselves) 

 laws that are passed for the benefit of the people at, 

 large. 



The 



In one of our articles on the influences 



"W t " affecting the national irrigation program, 

 - , we had occasion to refer to the defeat of 



p... the reform irrigation bill presented to 



the Legislature of California last winter 

 by the California Water and Forest Association, and 

 in this connection disclosed the purpose of a meeting 

 held at Riverside, Cal., on December 29, to create a 

 sentiment against the bill. Our words were : 



"The Riverside convention was composed almost 

 wholly of the great water companies of Southern Cali- 

 fornia, who have the irrigator in their power, and 

 who, for this reason, do not favor state restrictions to 

 their influence, or any provisions which might bring 

 relief to the actual user of water." 



Now conies the Riverside (Cal.) Press with an 

 abortive attempt to show that the bill was defeated 

 by the will of the great body of water users of Cali- 

 fornia and not by corporate and greedy influences. 

 It says : 



"We wonder where this man Anderson has been 

 slumbering for the last six months. As a matter of 

 fact the Riverside convention was composed almost en- 

 tirely of irrigators, of actual users of water; and the 

 water companies that Mr. Anderson inveighs against 

 are mutual organizations composed of irrigators. They 

 do not sell water, in the ordinary sense of the term, but 

 supply it to their stockholders. The idea of their 

 having 'the irrigators in their power' is entirely absurd. 

 How could a man oppress himself? 



"Somebody ought to kindly wake Mr. Anderson 

 from his trance, 'and after playing the hose on him 

 to fully arouse him, give him an opportunity to read 

 the files of the California papers for last winter. At 

 present he evidently hasn't even a remote conception 

 of what he is talking about." 



It will be somewhat astonishing if the people of 

 California permit themselves to be deprived of reform 

 irrigation legislation by any such statement as that 

 contained above. It is true that the Riverside meet- 

 ing was composed largely of representatives of mutual 



water companies, but the idea that water companies 

 who "supply water to their stockholders" can not be 

 oppressive is as ridiculous as the idea, that California 

 can reach its full agricultural development without 

 so defining and establishing water titles that they will 

 be beyond the reach of periodical attacks in court. It 

 has been contended that farmers, when effectively unit- 

 ed, make the most unreasonable of monopolists. The 

 truth of the contention seems well illustrated by the 

 attitude of the "mutual" water companies of southern 

 California. There is no more reason why an incor- 

 porated body of farmers and wealthy landowners should 

 be allowed to control more water than they need, or 

 to blackmail the unprotected irrigator into relinquish- 

 ing that which is rightfully his, than there is that this 

 should be done by a company organized wholly for 

 making profit from the sale of water; if anything, the 

 former is the more reprehensible. 



Our contemporary suggests that we read the files 

 of the California papers for last winter. Wishing to 

 be accommodating we have taken down some of them 

 and find the following, in an editorial comment on 

 the opposition to the bill in question, in perhaps the 

 most influential daily newspaper of California and of 

 the Pacific coast: 



"Some idea of the bill can be gathered from the 

 character of its enemies. These, in a word, consist 

 of every man in California who has or hopes to ob- 

 tain the control of any quantity of water, more or 

 less, of which he may hope to make merchandise. 

 These are headed by the transcontinental railroads, 

 whose unavowed but effective agent has been in con- 

 stant telegraphic correspondence with the opponents of 

 the bill at Sacramento, whose movements he has as- 

 sumed to direct, and it is believed that they have all 

 taken his orders. The open fight has been made in 

 the name of certain 'co-operative' water companies of 

 Southern California. These are all moved by the same 

 considerations which control others in possession of 

 water. They wish to get all they can and to keep 

 all they get. If they have grabbed more than they 

 need they want to sell it. They have made common 

 cause with the railroad and other water monopolists 

 and will continue to do so. The alignment for and 

 against the bill may now be very plainly seen. Those 

 opposed to the bill are those in possession of the water. 

 Those for it will be the rest of the people as fast as 

 they become educated to a knowledge of the situation." 



We trust that the great mass of irrigators of Cali- 

 fornia, and the business men who have at heart the 

 agricultural welfare of the state, will persist in their 

 effort to seek out and expose the enemies of irriga- 

 tion development among their supposed friends. We 

 understand that the "Works" bill is to be again pre- 

 sented to the Legislature of California two years hence, 

 and that in the interval the progressive people of Cali- 

 fornia are proceeding with their campaign of education. 



