274 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



dam in which to commence the excavation or construction of the ■works in which he intends to divert 

 the water. 



By "completion" is meant conducting tlie waters to the place of intended use. 



By a compliance with the above rules the claimant's right to the use of the water relates back to 

 the time the notice was posted. 



A failure to comply with such rules deprives the claimants of the right to the use of the water as 

 against a subsequent claimant who complies therewith. 



Persons who have heretofore claimed the right to water, and who have not constructed works in 

 which to divert it, and who have not diverted nor applied it to some useful purpose, must, after this 

 title takes effest, and within twenty days thereafter, proceed as in this title provided, or their right 

 ceases. 



The recorder of each county must keej^ a book, in which he must record the notices pro^^ded for 

 in this title. 



The rights of riparian proprietoi^? are not affected by the provisions of this title. 



This last section referring to riparian rights has been repealed. But as the sec- 

 tion conferred no right its appeal takes nothing from the chapter, neither does it 

 strengthen the cause of the appropriator. No matter what danger may lurk in the 

 doctrine of riparian rights there was very little danger in this section of the code. 

 Whatever rights are, or have been, vested by the doctrine of riparian rights will 

 remain vested rights until, b}' the right of eminent domain, they are condemned for 

 some higher beneficial purpose. 



Whenever water is appropriated for the purpose of being sold for domestic use, 

 or for irrigation and the watering of stock, the supervisors of the counties wherein 

 the water is to be sold, or the town trustees, as the case may be, have the right to 

 estalilish water rates; but these rates are to be such as afford a reasonable return upon 

 the value of the plant or canal in use. 



As a result of the efforts of a large number of advocates of the doctrine that land 

 and the water to irrigate it should be held in joint ownership an irrigation-district 

 law was passed in 1887. Pro\-ision was made for the ordering of an election for the 

 organization of districts on petition of fifty or a majority of the freeholders of the 

 proposed district. Lands included in any district were to be susceptible of irrigation 

 from a common source. County supervisors were given power to grant or deny 

 petitions from freeholders desii'ing to form districts. They could order the neces- 

 sary election and could amend boundaries. District directors (five in number) were 

 elected from divisions into which the districts were divided. Upon the adoption of 

 plans and the making of an estimate of cost by an engineer bonds were issued and 

 their sale was permitted at not less than 90 per cent of their face value. In voting 

 on the formation of the district and on the issuance of bonds no property qualification 

 was prescribed. 



This irrigation-district law has proven a serious obstacle to healthful irrigation 

 development in this State. The machinery for the application of the fundamental 

 principle has proven inadequate. The district law withstood successfully the most 

 vigorous legal attacks, j'et the affairs of no district have been so managed as to escape 

 such attacks or to fully satisfy the expectations of the landowners. 



There should have been State instead of local control at the very outset of district 

 formation. The sufficiency of the water supply and the extent of the district should 

 have been vouched for by the State engineer or by some department equivalent to a 

 professional department of public works. Only property owners should have, had a 



