60 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



Stimson Canal Compani/. 



June 4, 1898: Permitted to build dam or levee at or near North Fork and to take water so long as 

 prior right of Crescent Canal Company to 213 cubic feet per second not interfered with. 



Rancho Lagima de Ta'che. 



April 17, 1885: Denied more than 30 cubic feet per second until Lower Kings River Ditch Com- 

 pany supplied with 100 cubic feet per second. 



July 21, 1885: Given a decision perpetually enjoining Fowler Switch Canal Company from divert- 

 ing any water from Kings River. 



September 12, 1885: (jiven a similar decision against the Center\'ille and Kingsburg Canal 

 Company. 



November 5, 1885: Given a similar decision against the Fresno and Kings River Canal Company. 



May 3, 1886: Given a decision enjoining Last Chance Water Ditch Company from enlarging lower 

 channel of Kings River or from obstructing the flow in Cole Slough. 



November 4, 1889: Given a similar decision against the 76 Canal and Irrigation Company, except 

 as to riparian lands watered by it in Fresno County. 



October 4, 1897: Adjudged 30 cubic feet per second as against Lower Kings River Ditch Company 

 and Peoples Water Ditch Company. 



This abstract and the discussion in his I'eport shows that while the 

 Fowler Switch Canal has been enjoined from diverting water it does divert 

 enough to irrigate 10,000 acres, almost enough, one' would suppose, to 

 constitute a violation of the injunction. It shows that one right now serves 

 land 30 miles above the place where the right was acquired, it having been 

 floated that distance upstream. It shows that if there were no rights to 

 the stream except the adjudicated ones, and the map which accompanies 

 Mr. Grunsky's report shows there are, an attempt to divide the river in 

 accordance with these would be an exceedingly difficult if not impossible 

 performance. Whoever attempts it would have to determine how much of 

 the stream belongs to the riparian proprietors. He would have to determine 

 which of these adjudicated rights were entitled to water and which should 

 go without. No matter how honest he might be, he could not expect to 

 succeed because he would have no adequate guide for his action. The 

 Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company has a prior right as against the Last 

 Chance Canal of 100 cubic feet per second, and a prior right against the 

 Lower Kings River Canal to a similar amount. It has a prior right to 

 1,000 cubic feet per second as against the 76 Land and Water Company, 

 but what are its rights as against the other canals! No one has the least 

 idea. The Centerville and Kingsburg Ditch Company has a right to 600 

 cubic feet per second subject to prior rights of 673 cubic feet per second. 

 What are its rights outside of these 673 feet! It will take several more 

 lawsuits to decide. The rights of the 76 Land and Water Company are 

 inferior to those of the Peoples Water Ditch Company, the Last Chance 

 Water Ditch Compaii}', and the Rancho Laguna de Tache, but what is the 



