84 



IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



Honey Lake comes from this source. But, oddly enough, we shall discover that the 

 total claims to water from the chief stream of the valley have been much smaller 

 than those made upon several lesser streams. Indeed, there is one water course which 

 contributes to Honey Lake only about one-third as much water as Susan River, 

 yet over six times as nmch water has been claimed from the smaller as from the 

 larger stream. It is thus apparent that the amount of actual supply has no logical 

 relation to the extent of claims. How could it be otherwise in a State which makes 

 no provision for the measurement of its waters and leaves its people to scramble 

 blindly for the most precious of all natural elements in an arid land ? 



In the first place, there is no provision in the law for the cancellation of claims. 

 They lapse if not applied with due diligence to a beneficial use, but there is no legal 

 requirement calling for a record of such lapses. . In the second place, as has been 

 observed in foregoing comments on the law, there is no legal means of knowing that 

 any appropriator has used the entire amount of water that he claimed. It is notorious 

 that in California appropriators make no attempt to claim with even approximate 

 accuracy the amount of water they need. The only rule is to be sure to make the 

 claim large enough. This generally results in "claiming, the earth," so to speak. 



CLAIMS ON SUSAN RIVER. 



The claims to waters of Susan Kiver filed from April 27, 1872, to April 6, 1900, 

 were as follows: 



Filings on Smart River, 187^-1900. ' 



The above total does not represent the entire claims on Susan River, however. 

 The total number of claims was 92, while only 80 are included in the table. This 

 discrepancy is due to the fact that 12 appropriations were couched in such indefinite 

 terms that they could not be reduced to tabular form. As these indefinite appropria- 

 tions reveal the utter laxness of California irrigation practice it is well worth while 

 to reproduce .some of the more striking ones: 



W. B. Sargeant (1873) claimed "all surplus water (in the river) over and above 

 the 2,000 inches claimed by A. A. Smith." 



Z. N. Spalding (1873) claimed "the water taken out" of Piute Creek, a tributary 

 of the Su-san. There was nothing to indicate how much he had "taken out" or 

 desired to take out. 



