254 ' IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



extension of the irrigation area. Tiie soil is a light sand}" loam, quite fertile and 

 favorable to irrigation. 



In cases of orchards and vineyards planted on porous soils, lateral absorption, 

 or furrow irrigation, is often practiced. 



DUTY OF WATER. 



Without an extended study of the results of irrigation from the various canals 

 discussed in this report, it would be impossible to give an adequate treatment of the 

 duty of water in the district covered. However, by drawing upon the experience of 

 irrigators and canal owners, I was enabled to ascertain what it is considered to be in 

 some instances. 



The best accessi])le authorities give the duty of water on most of the canals 

 under consideration to be approximately 160 acres to the cubic foot per second. 

 This would apply to the Aliso Canal, the Chowchilla Canal, the Blyth canals, and the 

 canals owned by the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company. 

 On the Madera Canal and Irrigation Compan3''s canal it is estimated to be.from lOU 

 to 120 acres per cubic foot per second. However, the loss of water from percolation 

 into the bed of the river and into the distributing ditches is very large, estimated to 

 be one-half of the whole amount taken in. Of course, if this loss could be prevented, 

 the dutj' would be greatly increased, if not doubled. The largest duty found was on 

 the land under the private canal of the Sierra Vista Vineyard Company. There it 

 was roughly estimated by the proprietors to be 2.50 acres per cubic foot per second. . 



ANSWEES TO A CIRCULAR LETTER OF INaUIRY CONCERNING IRRIGATION 



MATTERS. 



During the progress of m}- investigation of irrrigation along San Joaquin 

 River, I addressed a circular letter to manj- prominent citizens interested in irriga- 

 tion, residents of Fresno, Madera, and adjacent territory, and, among other things, 

 asked certain questions. 



To these questions 1 received numei'ous answers, many oral and some written. I 

 will endeavor to give the full sense of these replies: 



(1) Is the present method of adjudicating water rights satisfactory 2 If not. 

 what method should replace it? It was generally admitted that the present method 

 of adjudicating water rights through the courts is very unsatisfactory. By many, a 

 board of control, or a commission, with full power, was suggested. 



(2) How has the doctrine of riparian rights influenced the success of irrigation 

 in this State? And do j-ou suggest any modifications of this doctrine? The unani- 

 mous opinion was that the doctrine of riparian rights has worked great hardship to 

 irrigation, and that the law of riparian rights should be '"entirelj' wiped out." 

 Some suggested that the ownership of water should be vested in the State, or in the 

 National Government. 



(;•!) Is the present sv'stem of stream control, or lack of it, and of dividing the 

 waters among the several claimants, satisfactory? If not, what form of control 

 should be su))stituted for the present one? With a few exceptions, the answer was 

 "No, it is not satisfactory, but ver}- unsatisfactory;" and a s^'stem of control similar 

 to that in tlie State of Wyoming was several times suggested. 



