276 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



WATER-RIGHT LITIGATION. 



A search of the court records of the three counties through which Kings River 

 flows has been made, and abstracts of a number of cases, showing the basis of com- 

 plaint, the answer, and the decree of the court (if judgment has been rendered), are 

 noted in the abstracts which are herewith presented.' The abstracts cover 42 cases 

 in Fresno County, 42 cases m Tulare County, and 19 cases in Kings Countj^ and 

 these by no means represent all the litigation relating to water and water rights, but 

 cover only the principal cases in which the rights of ditches and canals to divert 

 water from the river or its branches are brought into question. The list could be 

 supplemented with many more relating to controversies between water consumers 

 and the canal companies which are furnishing the water, and others relating to the 

 validity of the formation of irrigation districts and kindred matters. Time and 

 means have not permitted this inquiry to be made complete. 



When the lands bordering upon Kings River in its course from the foothills to 

 the valley trough were sold there was doubt as to whether the riparian doctrine 

 prevailed in this State, and even after being recognized by the courts this doctrine, 

 by reason of the vagueness and uncertainty of the definition of the rights of the 

 riparian owner and of the extent of riparian lands (particularly when the riparian 

 owner himself often claims under this doctrine merely to become an appropriator), 

 was but little heeded when the matter of making a water appropriation was under 

 consideration. In view of the abundance of the water supply, the earliest ditch 

 builders felt secure under the sanction of custom and the language of the statute 

 which permitted the taking of water for beneficial purposes. They preferred to rely 

 upon the fact of the taking rather than upon official records to establish a claim or 

 a right to the use of water as against other takers or often against riparian owners. 

 The demand for better and clearly defined regulations in the matter of acquiring the 

 right to use water has not therefore been as urgently pressed as circumstances would 

 seem to warrant. This has no doubt been also largely due to the fact that appropri- 

 ators themselves have often preferred to first let sufficient time elapse for the perfec- 

 tion of their own works, with extensions and increased beneficial use, before inviting 

 thorough judicial inquiry and equitable apportionment. 



In the upper poi*tions of the valley section of Kings River it flows through the 

 Centerville Bottoms in a network of channels, and all the lands bordering the river 

 appear, under the riparian doctrine, to have some rights that were encroached upon 

 by the canals and ditches taking water from points above or near the upper end of 

 the bottom lands. So, too, the lands bordering upon the delta channels, and, in fact, 

 most of the lands of the river delta, notably the Laguna de Tache Rancho and the 

 large holdings along the southerly bank of the main stream, have under this doctrine 

 been in a position to interpose legal objections and obstacles with more or less success 

 to the taking of water by the canals. It has not always been a question of compelling 

 the canal companies to pay for the damage done by the diverting of water, but the 

 controversies have almost invariably been in the nature of attempts to estop the 

 taking entirely. Proceedings to accomplish this are often postponed until long after 

 the canal is constructed and in service. The enforcement of a decree is then often 



*The abstracts referred to cover 130 pages of typewritten matter and are too long for insertion. 



