SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION. 23 



Instructions to special agents and experts of the United States Department of Agriculture, ?« the investigations 



relating to irrigation in California. 



Gentlemen: The study of the irrigation laws, customs, and conditions of California, in which 

 your services have been secured, is the most comprehensive investigation of these questions yet 

 undertaken in this country. This gives to the facts you are to gather and the reports and conclusions 

 based thereon an exceptional interest. 



What you will do in California is being done in other States, and for the purpose of comparing 

 results it is desirable, as far as may be, that all these investigations shall pursue the .same general plan, 

 discuss the same general problems, and follow the same order in their treatment. Because of this, and 

 because each of you will act independently in the collection of data and in formulating your conclusions, 

 it is neces.sary that there be a preliminary understanding regarding both the nature of the subjects to 

 be dealt with, and the general form of your reports thereon. As an aid to such understanding and 

 concert of action, the following suggestions are submitted: 



PL.\N OF WORK. 



On the stream and its tributaries embraced in your field of investigation endeavor to secure all 

 of the facts showing the operation of the present irrigation system. This to include: 



First. Abstracts of the records of claims to water, character of those records, including the 

 number of claims, total volume claimed, place where recorded, and the ease or difficulty with which 

 the validity of any claim can be determined. 



Second. Rights to water for other purposes than irrigation, viz, mining, power, and domestic use. 



Third. The methods by which the amount and character of water rights are determined, accessi- 

 bility, and completeness of the record showing the nature of the established rights. 



Fourth. Character of litigation over water rights, its cost, the causes therefor, it« influence on 

 irrigation development, and the principles established by decisions rendered in cases arising on the 

 stream being studied. 



Fifth. Rights for storage and underground waters, how acquired, and how they are affected by 

 rights to the surface flow of streams, and how the use of underground waters influences the stream's 

 discharge. 



Sixth. Nature of an appropriation of water. Who is regarded as the appropriator — the ditch 

 builder, the owner of the land on which water is used, or is the land itself the appropriator? What is 

 the measure of its amount, the size of the claim, the capacity of the ditch, or the area irrigated? 



FIELD INVESTIGATIONS. 



Seventh. The collection of the data showing discharge of stream, or measurement of its discharge 

 where no such data can be had. Study of volume of return or seepage water and its availability for 

 being again diverted, and its influence on the value of irrigators' rights. 



Eighth. Size, numter, location, and capacity of ditches and other distributing works established, 

 and the duty of water obtained. 



Ninth. Collection of data showing how water is divided among different ditches from the same 

 stream, how it is distributed among users. Nature of water-right contracts between canal owners and 

 water users, including facts showing what contracts have proven satisfactory, and what ones have given 

 rise to controversy, with the reason therefor. Collection of information showing the value of water for 

 irrigation as shown by the rates paid for its delivery, the methods by which these rates are established, 

 and *heir justice or objectionable features. 



REPORTS. 



Tenth. While the facts gathered will largely modify the nature of their presentation, it will greatly 

 aid those who read your conclusions if they deal with the same issues and in the same order. The 

 following scheme is suggested: 



(a) The foundation of any system of administrative laws is the method of establishing rights to 

 the stream. In your discussion of the results in California, the first question to be considered is 

 whether or not the present method of filing and recording claims to water is satisfactory. If not, what 

 should take its place? ^ 



(6) Is the present method of adjudicating rights satisfactory? If not, what should replace it? 



