40 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



linve long operated side by side in different districts of the same ])rovince. 

 The small size and contiguity of these districts makes it certain that climate 

 and soil have nothing to do with the difference in the prosperity observed 

 among the farmers. The situation there resembles what would prevail in 

 California if each county of the State had a different code of water laws 

 and a different doctrine regarding water rights. There has been time 

 enough to work out to a final result the influence of the different doctrines of 

 water ownership. In Valencia, the most beautiful and prosperous section 

 of Spain, irrigated agriculture dates back to the Moors. Water rights are 

 founded on customs which are older than records. Water and land are 

 inseparable. Every writer who has visited Valencia is of the opinion that 

 the thrift, the skill, and the success shown by farmers comes from the 

 peace and security which go with the control of both elements of production 

 ill an arid region — water and land. In the same province the results of the 

 separate ownership of water and land are as completel)^ manifest. In the 

 district of Elche water was originally controlled by the landowners, but land 

 and water were not made inseparable. Gradually water rights were bought 

 up by outsiders. Now the farmer buys water from these owners of streams 

 just as he does fertilizers. The water tolls have been raised, farmers impov- 

 erished, and all progress and prosperity banished. In the province of Murcia 

 water is attached to the land and farmers are prosperous. In Lorca land 

 and water are separated, and the result, says a recent report, is "large 

 profits for the water owner, poor farmers, and languishing agriculture." 



Which of these two policies does California propose to adhere to? The 

 recognition of property rights in water and their separation from land can 

 lead to but one result: Development of irrigation will be corporate and 

 great aggregations of capital will control the water resources of the West. 

 Thus far court decisions in California have been conflicting. As already 

 stated, the policy adopted ought not to be chosen in the light of what is, but 

 in the light of what ought to be. The experience of Europe shows that the 

 ownership of water apart from land can not prevail without creating grave 

 abuses, and, no matter what the trouble or cost of getting on a proper basis 

 may be, it ought to be done. Experience in the arid States of this country 

 has also shown that separate ownership of water and land results in contests 

 and expensive lawsuits, while union of land and water greatly lessens these 

 evils or ends them entirely. Hence it can not be public interest but private 

 selfishness which rejects this doctrine. 



In Wyoming and Nebraska the true principle has already been adopted 

 by the State boards of control and put into practice with the best results. 



