lEEIGATION PROBLEMS IN SALINAS VALLEY. 



197 



10,000 inches or 200 caibic feet per second. An examination of all existing works on 

 the Salinas and its tributaries shows that the actual capacity of the works having 

 filings for taking water is about as given below. The total claims on each stream are 

 repeated here for comparison: 



Claims to Salinag Hirer and tributaries and capacity of diverting ivorks. 



j Capacity of canals. 



Claims. 



Stream. 



Miner's 

 inches. 



Salinas River. 

 Arroyo Seco . . 

 San Lorenzo . . 

 San Antonio . . 



64,663 

 23,a50 

 »1,375 



(a) 



Cubic 



Miner's 



Cubic 



feet per ^j;"" » feet per 

 second. : '°«°*'S. g,^^^^ 



1,293.5 -237,378 ; 



467.0 204,550 ' 

 687.5 ] 11,500 



i 10,000 



4,74S 



4,091 



230 



200 



a Slight, not determinable. 



The San Lorenzo is the only stream on which the filings are not in excess of the 

 ditch capacit}', and where on a single daj- the flood flow has been in excess of the filings. 

 The information on this point was obtained through the courtesy of Mr. Morse, from 

 the Spreckels Sugar Company. Mr. Morse had some determinations of the storm 

 flow of San Lorenzo Creek made by Mr. Thompson, C. E., and supplemented these 

 latter by gage readings on which approximate discharge calculations were based. 

 On January 3, 1900, San Lorenzo Creek is said to have had a flood flow of 900 cubic 

 feet per second. 



The determination of the actual carrying capacity of existing works, except in 

 the case of two pumping plants, had to be based on calculations, since no Mater was 

 running through the ditches which take water by gravity from the Salinas and its 

 tributaries when the examination was made. It is the intention to substitute the 

 results of actual gagings if they can be made this coming spring. 



From what has been said regai"ding the claims to the waters of this river and its 

 tributaries, it is apparent that the present method of recording water claims is unsat- 

 isfactory, and is apt to work injury to ever3-one concerned. Under existing rulings 

 "evidence as to the capacity of the flume and the amount of water used is evidence 

 of appropriation," so that the amount claimed in the filing has nothing to do with the 

 matter. Again, the point of divei'sion may be changed, if others are not injured by 

 the change. (San Luis Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal., 168.) There is no method of 

 determining whether any claim has been made good except by field examination; and 

 even then the point of diversion and place of use may have been changed, so that it 

 may not be possible to trace a ditch back to the claim filed by its owners. This con- 

 fusion is added to by the decisions of the supreme court, that the effect of posting 

 the statutory notice and filing a copy of the same is merely to date the appropriation 

 back to the time of posting the notice, and that an appropriation is just as valid if 

 no notice is posted. (See Burrows v. Burrows, 82 Cal., 564, cited below.) The 

 people of the Salinas \^alley are fortunate in that the court records of Monterey Count}' 

 as j'et contain but few water-right cases, and it is hoped that some better method of 

 filing and proving up on claims will he devised before such difficulties arise. 



