IRRiGATION FROM SAN JOAQUIN RIVER. 255 



(4) Should there be a State officer to be known as State engineer; and if so, 

 what should be his powers and duties i Opinions seemed to be divided on this ques- 

 tion; the majority, how^ever, were in favor of such an officer, who should have 

 power, under properh' established principles of law, to adjudicate water rights. 



(5) Should there be a central office of record for claims or appropriations of 

 water, instead of the separate county records, as at present? This question was 

 answered almost without exception in the affirmative; the county records, however, 

 to be maintained as at present, and to be made complete as to the identifications of 

 locality, quantity of water appropriated, its actual use, etc. 



(6) What supervision or control should be exercised over water rights which yet 

 remain to be acquired? The opinion was that few water rights now remain to be 

 acquired; but that wherever they exist, they should be held bj- the State. 



(7) As to what should be done to save to the fullest extent and to use the most 

 economically and efficienth' the waters at present running to Maste. and particularly 

 the flood watei-s, there was unanimous opinion that it is absolutely essential to the 

 prosperity of the State that the waste and flood waters shall be saved by storage, 

 and dealt out under proper control as needed. As to who should control this system 

 of the conservation of water, the State or the nation, or the two combined, there 

 seems to be no doubt that there should be such control, but some favored the State, 

 some the nation, and some cooperative control by both. 



(8) What legislation is needed to define rights to water and to stored water, and to 

 determine the ownership of the waters thus stored i By whom should these laws be 

 enacted, by the State or by the national legislature i ilany citizens seemed to have 

 very positive ideas with regard to needed legislation, and particularly as to the abo- 

 lition of all riparian laws, saying. ''That should be the first thing done;" but, as to 

 the course and form of further legislation, either their ideas were not fnlh" matured 

 or else the}' declined to give them. Many did not favor national legislation on this 

 subject. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



As a result of my investigation and study of irrigation problems existing in 

 California, and particularly as I have found them in the valley of San Joaquin Rirer, 

 1 have drawn the following conclusions: 



METHODS OF FIIiING AND RECORDING CLAIMS TO WATER. 



The present method of posting notices and recording appropriations of water, 

 under the existing State law previoush' referred to, is unsatisfactory- to the last degree; 

 in practice it results in great indefiniteness as to the amount of water claimed and 

 uncertainty as to the localitj' mentioned. It countenances ignoi-ance of water laws 

 and water engineering, leads to obscurity of title, and, in many instances, renders 

 the establishment of the validity and priority of claims almost impossible. 



If the present method of making appropriations of water is to be retained, it 

 should be reformed so that every record of appropriation of water shall be perfectly 

 definite and accurate as to location, quantity of water claimed, date of appropriation, 

 size and character of proposed diversion works, and place of use of the water. Also, 

 reports of the time of beginning of the construction of works, of their progress and 

 of their completion, should be exacted. 



