92 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFOENIA. 



necessity of framing rules for the protection of this great interest, and in determining these questions 

 we have conformed, as nearly as possible, to the analogies of the common law. The fact early mani- 

 fested itself that the mines could not be successfully worked without a proprietorship in waters, and it 

 was recognized and maintained. To protect those who by their energy, industry, and capital had 

 constructed canals and races carrying water for miles into parts of the country which must have other- 

 wise remained unfruitful and undeveloped, it was held that the first appropriator acquired a special 

 property in the waters thus appropriated, and as a necessary consequence of such property might 

 invoke all remedies for its enjoyment or defense. 



At a later point in tiiis report we shall see how this theory of private property 

 in water, regardless of the manner and place of its use, differs from the theory of 

 water control which obtains in other States and other countries, and how it also 

 differs from the theorj' on which the most recent and sweeping decision of the United 

 States Supreme Court on this subject is based; but in this place we are considering 

 onty the California practice as it now stands and the consequences of that practice as 

 observed in one part of the State. 



A few other decisions may well be quoted to show how consistently the view of 

 Chief Justice Murray has been adhered to: 



Eight to water acquired by appropriation may be transferred like other property. (McDonald 

 V. Bear Kiver Co., 13 Cal., 2?0.) 



If the original appropriation was for a sawmill, the water may be used for a gristmill subsequently 

 erected. (McDonald v. Bear River Co., 13 Cal., 220.) 



If the water was appropriated for a mining claim, which is worked out and abandoned, the owner 

 may extend his ditch and use the same quantity of water at other points or for a different purpose. 

 (Davis V. Gate, 32 Cal., 26.) 



A person entitled to divert a given quantity of water from a stream may take it at any point on 

 the stream, and may change the point of diversion at pleasure, if the rights of others be not affected 

 injuriously. (Butte T. M. Co. v. Morgan, 19 Cal., 609.) 



The right of private ownership in water is therefore clearlj' established. This 

 right entitles the owner to change the point of diversion or the place or manner of 

 use at will, so long as it injures no one else. He may also sell his water like any other 

 commodit}'. The following decision furnishes important light upon the question of 

 measurement of appropriations: 



The prior appropriator is entitled to the water, so undiminished in quantity as to leave sufficient 

 to fill his ditch as it existed at the time the locations were made above. (Bear River Co. v. Xew York 

 Mining Co., 8 Cal., 327.) 



It is necessary to understand the law and its accepted interpretation in order to 

 comprehend the causes and results of water litigation in the basin which we are 

 considering. 



THE SUSAN RIVER COMMUNITIES. 



While no stream entering the basin has been free from litigation, the struggle 

 for the waters of Susan River (PI. VII) has naturally been most prolific of lawsuits. 

 In order to understand some of the chief elements entering into these troubles it is 

 neces.sary to know the location of three different communities which have grown up 

 Avith the aid of these waters. 



While Susanville is the chief town and county seat, it is not an agricultural com- 

 nmnity, and its pef)ple have therefore been comparatively free from lawsuits of this 

 kind. The first important agricultural community on the stream lies about 5 miles 



