198 lERIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



STORAGE. 



It has before been stated that the streams of the valley are practically torrential 

 ill character, and that to make their waters useful throughout the year the floods 

 must be stored. Even should such storage be possible at a reasonable outlay per 

 acre-foot of water, there is no legal protection to the builder of storage reservoirs 

 unless the rights of all riparian owners below the point of storage are acquired. 



It is evident from what has been stated above that the riparian law under which 

 water cases are now decided is a serious obstacle in the way of irrigation development. 

 It does not seem that anything short of its abolition and the substitution of an entirely 

 difl'erent law can bring about a change for the better. 



USE OF UNDERGROUND WATERS. 



There are undoubtedh' many parts of the valle\' for which irrigation by pumping 

 from subsurface sources will be more economical than the construction and main- 

 tenance of long and large ditch lines, with the resultant large losses of water in 

 transmission. The determination of the existence of such subsurface sources is 

 therefore of great importance, and Mr. Nutter's report (see Appendix, p. 208) shows 

 the extent to which our investigations were carried in this direction. 



Irrigation by pumping is already practiced to some extent in the Salinas Valley, 

 as shown in detail below. As pumping plants increase, a lowering of the subsurface 

 water level will undoubtedly take place, interference of new wells with old ones will 

 result, and lawsuits will follow. There are at present no methods by which a liling 

 on subsurface water can be made unless an actual stream flowing between banks can 

 be shown to exist. It certainly seems desirable that something should be done which 

 will protect a man when he has established a pumping plant, and secure to him the 

 permanent use of a definite amount of subsurface water. In New Hampshire this 

 rule has been adopted in several decisions: "That a landowner's right to obstruct or 

 divert oozing or percolating water is limited to such a quantity of water as is neces- 

 sary for the reasonable use of his own land." That ruling raises the difiiculty of 

 deciding what constitutes " reasonable use," and in England, as well as in most States 

 of the Union, this difliculty has been thought so great by the jurists deciding water 

 cases that thej' have declared that there is no property in underground water. This 

 whole question is treated in an admirable manner b}^ Lord Robert Cecil, Q. C, in 

 a paper entitled "The law of underground water," published in the Engineering 

 Kecord December 2, 1899. He says: 



The law is clear. It is generally true that all that lies beneath the land belongs to the owner of 

 tlu' surface. To this rule water is the exception. There is no i)roperty in underground water. But, 

 on tlie other hand, each owner may pump from his land what water he can get, with two exceptions: 

 He must not directly or indirectly take water already contained in a surface stream, nor must he 

 alii^tract water flowing underground in a known and definite channel. He has a perfect right to drain 

 the supiilii's to all his neighVjors' wells, however long they may have been enjoyed by their owners. 

 So, too, he may pump till springs miles away have ceased to flow and threaten to become swallow 

 holes for the streams they used to feed. Further than this he may not go. Once water is in the 

 channel of a stream, above or under ground, it is safe from subterranean depredators. 



This is, Lord Cecil believes, the law; "Whether it should be changed, and if so, 

 !iow, is another story." The California decisions agree with the law as laid down 

 above. (Gould r. Katoii, 111 Cal., 6.39; Hanson v. McCue, 42 Cal., 303; So. Pac. 



