102 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



and the fi'uits of many 3'ears' labor be lost. With the first sign of dissatisfaction the 

 miscnief-makers on both sides saw their opportunitj\ It was hinted to the Tule 

 people that Willow Creek and Willow Slough were entirely different streams, and 

 that if they received their quota of Susan River water as measured immediateh' 

 above the mouth of the old creek the}^ would have no cause to complain. As the 

 tension increased the intention of the company to treat Willow Slough as the proper 

 point of measurement assumed the proportions of a defiance and was later set up in 

 the defense on behalf of the dam. Nothing further was needed to confirm the 

 suspicion of the Tule farmers that their fortunes were menaced by the policy of 

 the new company, and that they wei'e face to face with a struggle for life. The 

 foolish words were not all on one side. Those who sympathized with the Tule 

 farmers hinted at the efficacy of dynamite, and the farmers themselves later attacked 

 the dam and removed a part of it. Their attorneys sought to destroy the value of 

 the former stipulation by asserting that the phrase "to store and use" limited the 

 compan3''s rights to simple storage and prohibited diversion. This interpretation 

 the}' sought to narrow so that storage itself was limited to one or two reservoirs 

 begun in 1893, and to the theory that even these could be filled and emptied but once 

 each year. This would have meant the destruction of the foundation on which the 

 entire enterprise was based. Thus on both sides the controversy became one of life 

 and death. This was the unfortunate outcome of the cooperative effort to utilize the. 

 water supply in a manner to secure the largest measure of justice and prosperitj' 

 for all. 



The plan was based on common sense, but the laws did not permit of its realization. 

 Had the stipulation been so definite that it could not be questioned, and had there 

 been a system of public administration under which no works could be undertaken 

 except with the approval of State authority, this costly and demoralizing incident 

 would not be a part of the valley's history. 



CONTRACTS OF IRRIGATION COMPANIES. 



Contracts to furnish water have been extensively made in the basin by the various 

 companies which at one time or another sought to develop the water supply. As 

 most of these enterprises failed, there has been little litigation on the subject. But 

 one interesting case may be cited which goes to show that the present laws and 

 practice are no more favorable to this kind of development than they are to small 

 private ditches. 



In the case referred to the plaintiff was a farmer taking water from the prin- 

 cipal irrigation system in the valley. In a year of general shoi-tage, owing to the 

 light snowfall in the mountains, he claimed that his crop had been materially dimin- 

 ished because the company had undertaken to oversell his supply. It was asserted 

 ill the complaint that only 1,600 acres had any legal right to receive water from the 

 system, while over 4,000 acres were being served. No definite amount of water was 

 promised by the contract. The expression was: " Suflicient water for the annual 

 irrigation of the tract of land particularly described." There was therefoi'e no 

 means of ])riiigiiig the; matter to the test of actual measurement or of deciding what 

 constituted "sufficient water," except by going into court. 



