98 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



prior to May 10 of each year. From ilay 10 to June 20 said defendant shall have one-fourth of said 

 water, provided that said one-fourth shall not exceed 50 inches. In times of extreme drought 

 defendant's one-fourth shall not exceed 25 inches from June 20 to August 1. In addition defendant 

 shall have all waters turned into said slough by plaintiffs prior to August 1. After August 1 defend- 

 ant slia]! have one-quarter of said waters so turned into said slough. Plaintiffs have right to divert 

 water for irrigation, stock, and domestic use, and have right to maintain dams and bulkheads and 

 regulate flow of water down Van Notten, Dill, and Big sloughs, and to exclude all the waters of the 

 river from said sloughs from and after May 10 of each year, and to compel waters to flow down main 

 channel of Susan River from June 20 to August 1. Plaintiffs have right to use sloughs as waterways 

 for diverson of water from their land. Defendant shall not in any way interfere with exercise of such 

 rights by plaintiffs. 



Would it be possible to frame a judgment in more indefinite terms? How 

 could such a judgment settle anything? The interests of these neighbors, plaintiffs 

 and defendants, are diametrically opposed. Each wants the stream to flow in a 

 different direction, and the season's crop is staked upon the result. Under such 

 circumstances thei'e can not possibly be an agreement as to what constitutes "one- 

 fourth" of the water. The actual result of this case was a fierce quarrel, on the 

 merits of which the communitj' was divided. When the defendant lifted his headgate, 

 the plaintiffs shut it down. There was shaking of fists and brandishing of shotguns. 

 Then came the lawsuit. The defendant won, but it was immediatelj' announced that 

 the plaintiff' would bring another suit. Neither the quarreling neighbors nor the 

 court which tried to adjust their grievances is to be blamed for the unhappy state 

 of affairs. The fault is in the law on which the California irrigation industrj^ is 

 founded. 



The judgments quoted are not exceptional, but representative of the entire list. 

 If wo took up each one separatelj- we should find nearly all of them inconclusive and 

 incapable of being carried out to the satisfaction of both parties, taking human 

 nature as it is. They are decisions which do not decide — which not only invite more 

 lawsuits, but practically compel them. In this connection it should be remembered 

 that the law provides no method for the distribution of water under public authority. 

 Each man is a law unto himself until somebody takes him into court, and he emerges 

 from that tribunal no wiser than when he went in. 



THE STIPIILATION AS TO STORAGE. 



We come now to the vexed question concerning the use of the surplus waters of 

 Susan River as between the storage enterprise and the farmers of the Tule district. 

 The stipulated judgment in this case, as condensed by those who searched the record 

 for the purposes of this report, reads as follows: 



Defendants B. H. Leavitt and C. C. Hutchison: Defendants to have right to store and use waters 

 of Susan River from March 1 to July 1, providing 1,000 inches of water are permitted to flow in the 

 channel of Susan River immediately above the mouth of Willow Creek. During the remainder of the 

 year defendants may use and store all waters in excess of 250 inches flowing at point aforesaid. Pro- 

 vides methods of measuring water in case of dispute as to the amount flowing at mouth of Willow 

 Creek. Fixes limit of evaporation and loss of waters stored in reservoirs at head of river, in passing 

 from said reservoirs to Lake I.«avitt, at 10 per cent. 



It was believed l)y the defendants in this case that their success in obtaining this 

 stipulation marked the beginning of a new era in the irrigation development of Honey 

 Lake Valle^'. The Tule district had yielded its right, in the view of the plaintiffs, to 



