34 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



many to oppose irrigation in any form. Opposition to tlie Wright law 

 has caused many to oppose all laws. It is to be hoped that this prejudice 

 and antagonism will soon be ended. A united sentiment is one of the 

 requisites to success. 



OBSTACIjES presented by INADEaUATE WATER LAWS. 



Many of those who desire to see the irrigated area extended say they 

 see no way to accomplish it. At Chico it was stated that all the water of 

 that section was now owned; that the Bidwell estate owned Chico Creek; 

 that the Stanford estate owned Butte Creek; that some other estate, whose 

 name has been forgotten, owned Rock Creek, and that any extended use 

 of the Sacramento River would give rise to litigation with the navigation 

 interests. To the inquiry as to how these estates acquired the ownership 

 of the streams named, reply was made that no one understood exactly how 

 a title was established. The owners of these estates were among the first 

 settlers and acquired the rights to water when not much attention was paid 

 to such matters. All those talked with accepted this ownership as estab- 

 lished, and were deterred by it from attempting to utilize these streams, 

 where otherwise they would have done so. Because of this the waters of 

 Chico Creek were running to waste, nothing was being done with Butte 

 Creek, and the greater part of Rock Creek was sinking in the sands. Mean- 

 while the census for 1900 shows that the jjopulation of Chico is less than it 

 was ten years ago, that the population of Willows has decreased, and that 

 outside of the irrigated territory there is stagnation in growth and waste of 

 opportunity. 



These uncertain but sweeping assertions of speculative ownership of 

 water and the hostility of water users to the recognition of the control 

 this implies have given rise to antagonisms which must in some way be 

 removed. The farmer fears that if he adopts irrigation he will become 

 the serf of the canal company. The capitalist hesitates about irrigation 

 investments for fear of contests with other canals and the reprisals which 

 hostile public sentiment would make possible, because of the fact that the 

 number of canal owners is few while the number of water users is large. 

 The claim of speculative ownership of water and the recognition of this 

 claim in some cases by the courts has been met by the law giving super- 

 visors practically unrestricted power to fix rates. Neither speculative 

 ownership nor unrestricted power over rates can continue without injury to 

 the public, and both should give way to institutions of justice. The time 

 has long passed when makeshift laws and temporary expedients should be 



