58 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



understanding of its provisions, and a more complete discussion is presented 

 in Bulletin No. 96. 



THE NEED OF A SPECIAI, TBIBtTNAIi TO SETTLE EXISTrWG RIGHTS. 



The reports of Mr. Smythe and Mr. Grunsky show how little progress 

 has been made in reaching a final settlement of existing rights in the courts. 

 Professor Soul^ filed with his report a statement of litigation on the San 

 Joaquin which had, like the list of water filings, to be omitted because it 

 was a volume in itself. -The discussion of this subject by J.udge Works ^ is 

 to the same effect. All lu'ge some plan for a simple, orderly, final settle- 

 ment of all the rights along each stream. To show how little has been 

 really accomplished by the court decrees thus far rendered, an abstract was 

 made of the litigated cases named in Mr. Grrunsky's report as follows: 



ABSTBACT OF LITIGATION OVER RIGHTS TO KINGS RIVER. 



Kings River and Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. 



August 10, 1875: Denied right to use Centerville channel of Kings River. 



November 5, 1885: Ordered to remove dams, etc., from Kings River and Centerville channel 

 thereof, and to cease diverting water. 



Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company. 



August 10, 1875: Granted right to use Centerville channel of Kings River. 



March 6, 1892: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second and no more, until Last Chance Canal is 

 supplied with 190 cubic feet per second. 



March 16, 1892: Adjudged 100 cubic feet per second and no more, until Lower Kings River 

 Canal supplied with 189 cubic feet per second. Previous acts of diverting 500 cubic feet per second 

 declared unlawful. 



January 8, 1900: Adjudged 1,000 cubic feet per second as against the '76 Land and Water 

 Company. 



Centerville and Kingsburg Irrigation Ditch Company. 



September 12, 1885: Ordered to remove all dams, etc., from Kings River and enjoined from 

 diverting water or interfering with its flow. 



February 25, 1900: Adjudged 600 cubic feet per second, subject to prior rights of three other 

 parties, aggregating 673 cubic feet per second. 



Arkansas Flat People. 



February 25, 1900: Adjudged right to 19 cubic feet per second. (Probably subject to prior rights 

 as noted above in case of Centerville and Kingsburg Irrigation Ditch Company. ) 



Fowler Switch Canal Company. 



July 21, 1885: Enjoined forever from diverting any water from Kings River or from obstructing 

 its flow. 



Emigrant Ditch Company. 



February 3, 1890: Adjudged 190 cubic feet per second as against Rancho Laguna de Tache. 



' Works on Irrigation. 



