IRRIGATION IlfVESTIGATIONS ON CACHE CREEK. .175 



"The brush dam was put in late and evervbod_v wanted the water before it was 

 ready," "Three to four weeks," "About four weeks," "Four weeks," "Thirty days," 

 "Sometimes wait a month or more," "About one month," "One month," "From 

 April until June." "One to five weeks," "Thirty to forty days," "Anywhere from 

 one to six weeks," "Six weeks," "Six weeks," "Three to six weeks," "Four to six 

 weeks," "Five to six weeks," "One and one-half months," "One to eight weeks," 

 "One to three months," "One to six months," "Long enough to lose one crop of 

 alfalfa each 3'ear," "Got none," "There is no regularity about it," "We wait until 

 the water happens to come our way and take what we can get," "Are still waiting, 

 and are liable to," "This year mj' crop was half grown when I got water," "Have 

 not had a thorough or satisfactory irrigation for three years," "We are unable to get 

 a supply of water at anj' time." 



If this failure to supply water was confined to August and September, when there 

 is little water in the stream, it might be excused, but it is not. On June 30, when the 

 ditch was taking 60.52 cubic feet per second, 75.88 cubic feet per second was passing 

 the headgate down Cache Creek. The larger part of this was wasted in the swamp. 

 This was at a time when water was much needed and the demand much in excess of 

 the volume which could be supplied by the ditch. As this ditch is managed, water 

 can not be used except in the season when the supply and the capacit}- of the ditch is 

 least and the demand for the water greatest. 



Surprising as is the condition of affairs set forth in the answers of the water users, 

 one does not have to look far for the cause. If water is private property, the canal 

 owner may do what he will with his own, and he may serve or neglect his customers 

 as suits his convenience or inclination. The onlj' thing that can change the situation 

 and reform this service is the recognition of the broader principle, which sooner or 

 later must apply in ever}- arid country, that water is public propertj' and the ditch 

 owner a public servant, and that the right to take water from a stream carries with 

 it the obligation of impartial and adequate service to the water users. The extent of 

 the right must be the measure of the obligation. 



If the taking of water from a stream and the protection of the rights already 

 vested is not a matter of public interest, it follows that each appropriator must protect 

 his own interests, and the litigation must go on in an ever-increasing ratio. So long 

 as the rights of the owners of the Moore Ditch are neither defined nor protected, so 

 long must they be in conflict with every new appropriator. They can not evade the 

 contest. These people are not more contentious than others. The elder Moore was 

 an enterprising, public-spirited man. His successors are good neighbors and respected 

 citizens. The chief responsibility for the present deplorable situation does not rest 

 with the canal owners. They, along with the people of the vallej'. are the victims of 

 a bad system, founded on the false principle of private ownership of water. 



Acting under the statute of California the board of supervisoi's of Yolo County 

 have attempted to fix the rates to be charged and the method of measurement under 

 the Moore Ditch. The ordinance reads as follows: 



The board of supervisors of the county of Yolo, State of California, do ordain as follows: 

 Section 1. The maximum rate at which the owners of the Moore or Woodland Ditch shall sell 

 and distribute for irrigation purposes the water appropriated by such owners and distributed by means 

 of such ditch is hereby fixed at the sum of $4 per foot for the period of twenty-four hours, with the 

 water flowing at the rate of 2 feet per second. 



