u2 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



Nersy are forced upon them. To acquiesce in a new diversion, through 

 sympathy, or for the sake of peace, may lay the foundation for an adverse 

 right by prescription and end in the curtailment or the overthrow of all 

 the rights of the peace lover. This uncertainty and the fear of being 

 supplanted which grows out of it is the cause of much of the hostilitv 

 with Avhich appropriators regard new ditches, and is the motive behind 

 much of the extravagance and waste which sometimes prevail in the use 

 of water. With a right clearly defined and protected, its owner has no 

 fear of shortage in time of need, and he is willing, when his crops do 

 not require water, to have it utilized by others. But when the right is 

 insecure or not defined the insthict of self-protection makes an Ishmaelite 

 of every water user. His hand must be against every man, as every 

 man's hand is against him. Duty to himself and to those dependent on 

 him makes it necessary that he shall use all means at his command to 

 discourage the establishment of rights which may later interfere with his 

 necessary use of water. Under such a system every new appi'opriator 

 is a new element of uncertainty and another menace to the peace of the 

 community. The whole system is wrong. It is wrong in principle as- 

 well as faulty in procedure. It assumes that the establishment of titles 

 to the snows on the mountains and the rains falling on the public land 

 and the waters collected in the lakes and rivers, on the use of which 

 the development of the State must in a great measure depend, is a private 

 matter. It ignores public interests in a resource upon which the enduring 

 prosperity of communities must rest. It is like A suing B for control of 

 ])roperty which belongs to C. Many able attorneys hold that these decreed 

 rights will in time be held invalid, because when they were established the 

 public, the real owner of the water, never had its dav in court. 



ATTORNEYS AND COURTS NOT RESPONSIBLE. 



The responsibility for this situation rests first of all with the irrigators 

 and ditch owners. It arises from their reluctance to submit to any sort 

 of supervision and effective control. Although attorneys and judges have 

 had nmch to do with these controversies over water rights, they are in 

 no sense responsible for their creation. In fact, under the present situation 

 the courts are the only protection against a rule of force or anarchy. At 

 ])resent no class of citizens are doing more to reform the irrigation laws of 

 California than its attorneys. Wherever they have been apjjealed to they 

 have given their time and influence to promote the success of this investi- 

 gation. One of the ablest arguments to which I have listened in favor of a 

 special tribunal to make a final determination of all existing rights was 



