IRRIGATION PROBLEMS OF HONEY LAKE BASIN. 103 



The company answered in part by quoting the following provisions of the con- 

 tract itself: 



It is Tinderstood and agreed that, if in any one or more years the supply of water in said irrigation 

 system shall be inadequate for the proper irrigation of all the lands for which the party of the firs-t 

 part may have agreed to supply it, then in such case the priority of such grant and agreement shall 

 give no priority of right as against those having similar agreements, although of later date; and in the 

 event of such inadequate supply all parties having agreements similar to this with the party of the first 

 part shall be entitled to receive water pro rata; that is, the party of the second part shall be entitled to 

 receive the same quantity of water per acre for the land above described as others receive per acre for 

 their lands and no more. 



On this point the company offered evidence to show that the owners of over 6,000 

 acres had bought and paid for similar water rights prior to the plaintiff. One other 

 material point in the contract was as follows: 



That it is understood and agreed, that, if from any cause the said irrigation system shall during 

 one or more years be inadequate to furnish a sufficient supply of water to produce a crop upon said 

 land of the party of the second part, the party of the first part shall not be liable for any damages 

 which may result from such insufficient supply. 



The judgment of the court in this case was as follows: 



Plaintiff has right to demand and receive from defendant sufficient water from its system to 

 thoroughly irrigate all crops annually grown (on lands described). It is ordered that defendant fur- 

 nish no water to irrigate any land in excess of 1,600 acres from its irrigation system in any year until 

 plaintiff's lands are fully supplied with water. Defendant enjoined from furnishing water in excess of 

 said acreage before mentioned. Seven hundred and fifty dollars damages and costs to plaintiff. 



To the defefidant company the provisions of the contract seemed very clear. In 

 view of the decision, however, it would appear that the present law and the manner 

 of its interpretation furnish very little protection for those who make investments of 

 this character. 



THE NEEDED REFORM OF CALIFORNIA LAWS. 



The evils of the California irrigation laws, as clearly disclosed bj' the experience 

 of Honey Lake Basin, may be briefly summarized as follows: 



1. The laxne-ss of the method of appropriation. — ^This results in the overappro- 

 priation of streams to a preposterous degree, in the posting of important notices 

 in obscure places, in the keeping of public records difficult of access and almost 

 wholly indefinite as to the actual status of existing rights, and in demoralizing and 

 interminable strife between different users of water from a common source. 



2. The failure to ascertain the character and extemi of water supplies hy piMic 

 authority. — Without such official data there can be no safe foimdation for further 

 development and no intelligent appropriation of water for any purpose. 



3. The failure to assert public authority over the construction of irrigation 

 works. — This results in the building of dams, canals, and reservoirs which may be 

 contrary to public policy and a menace to life and property. 



4^. The failure to provide jvM methods for the distribution of water under pMic 

 authority. — This leads to bitter struggles among the neighbors to obtain sufficient 

 water for the satisfaction of their rights as they understand them. 



5. The lack of any method of establishing the reasonable duty of water in different 

 localities.— yi'\^o\A an agreement on this subject there is no basis for an intelligent 

 decision as to what constitutes "beneficial use." 



