46 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



but not otherwise, because when severed from the land it is no longer a riparian right, but that right 

 is wholly destroyed. Therefore, it is certainly an error to say that a riparian right may be conveyed 

 separate from the land. The party to whom the conveyance is made may obtain the right to the use 

 of the water, but it is no longer a riparian right.— Pp. 23-2.5. 



If the conclusions of Judge Works, quoted aoove, are correct, and they 

 are quoted because believed to be, the riparian rights recognized and estab- 

 lished by the courts of California are a new creation, since they have no 

 foundation in statute law and are not in accord with the common law. As / 

 these rights, if maintained, will in time control the greater part of the 

 water supply of the State and shape the development and charactei^ of an 

 industry on which the Avelfare of generations yet unborn will depend, it 

 becomes a matter of more than usual economic interest to determine defi- 

 nitely their limitations and character. To do this from a study of existing 

 conditions would require more than a finite intellect. Among the contra- 

 dictions and uncertainties which they present to students of the subject, 

 and to those wishing to make use of the water supply, are the following: 



The doctrine of appropriation and the coirmion-law doctrine of riparian 

 rights are directjy antagonistic and can not be reconciled, yet both are a 

 part of the California irrigation system. One exists by virtue of a statute 

 and the other through court decision. How they operate together is illus- 

 trated by the conditions in the eight districts included in this investigation. 

 The discussions of Mr. Schuyler of the situation in southern California, and 

 of all the investigators in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, portray 

 the uncertainties and dangers which now beset users of water. These 

 reports show that appropriators claim over 100,000,000 inches, which is more 

 than the combined discharges of the streams, and leaves nothing for the 

 riparian proprietors. The latter, on the other hand, claim a preferred i-ight 

 to use, sell, or lease the entire flow of these streams, and in some instances 

 where they have not cared to do either they have successfully prevented the 

 use of these streams by others. No one, whether an approjjriator or riparian 

 proprietor, knows definitely how much water he is entitled to, nor how soon 

 he mav have to defend his rights in a long and costly lawsuit. 



If the waters of California streams were required to flow in their natural 

 channels substantially undiminished in quantity, as would be the case under 

 some definitions of the common-law doctrine, there would be no uncer- 

 taintA' regarding what are riparian lands. They would be those lands imme- 

 diately contiguous to the stream. But when this doctrine is so modified 

 as to permit water to be taken away from the stream for the irrigation of 

 land more or less remote from the natural channel, and when in practice 



