WATER APPROPRIATION FROM KINGS RIVER. 277 



thought to be an unbearable hardship, and there are canals on the river to-day appar- 

 entlj' evading decrees of the courts, which deny them the right to take water. 



As a result of the suits brought by the owners of the Laguna de Tache Rancho, 

 who control in the aggregate over 60,000 acres of land in-one body, which lies for the 

 most part in the delta region of the river, it was. on Juh' 21, 1885, decreed that the 

 Fowler Switch Canal Corapan}* should take no water from Kings River and should 

 fill in the head of its canal. On September 12, 1885, Judgment was entered against 

 the Centerville and Kingsburg Canal Company, decreeing that its canal take no 

 water, remove all dams and other obstructions from Kings River, and fill in the head 

 of its canal. It was decreed on November 5, 1885. that the Kings River and Fresno 

 Canal Company should take no water from the river and should fill in the head of 

 its ditch. This decree may have, in part at least, been the reason for the passing 

 of this canal into the hands of the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company, now con- 

 trolled by the same persons who own the Laguna de Tache Rancho. A similar judg- 

 ment was entered against the 76 Canal, or Alta Irrigation District Canal, on November 

 •4, 1889, except as to water for use on the riparian lands irrigated by it in Fresno 

 Count}'. All these decrees, having been affirmed by the supreme court of the State, 

 appear as final judgments. When we still find these canals receiving water at mean 

 to high stages of the river it may be inferred that they do so on tolerance. 



It would seem more logical and more equitable to have laws so administered that 

 either these canals could never have been built or that, having been built, their 

 rights to surplus water should have been more clearly defined. 



As above stated, one of these canals, the Kings River and Fresno Canal, is now 

 owned by the same persons who own the Fresno Canal and the Laguna de Tache 

 Rancho, so that in its case, plaintiff having absorbed the defendant, the court deci- 

 sion may never be enforced. 



In the case of the Fowler Switch Canal the decree has been rendered ineffectual, 

 in a measure at least, by floating the water right of the Emigrant Ditch, in part, to 

 the head of the Fowler Switch Canal, it having happened that the Emigrant Ditch 

 Company was more fortunate than the other canal companies in securing a court 

 decision, on February 3, 1890, denying the owners of the Laguna de Tache Rancho a 

 cause of action, and decreeing that the Emigrant Ditch has a capacit}' of 190 cubic 

 feet per second. Branches of Fowler Switch Canal extend into the region com- 

 manded by the Emigrant Ditch and connect with the branches of the latter, but the 

 head of Fowler Switch Canal is about 33 miles aljove the original head of the 

 Emigi-ant Canal. 



Of the decisions rendered by the courts the following may be noted as of more 

 than local interest: ' 



August 10, 1875, the Kings River and Fresno Canal Company was by a decree 

 of court denied the right to use Centerville branch of Kings River. 



November 5, 1885. a judgment was rendered requiring the Kings River and 

 Fresno Canal Company to remove from the river, and from the Centerville channel 

 thereof, all dams and obstructions placed therein by that companj', and to fill the 

 head of its ditch so that water can not flow from the river or from said channel 



' Decisions are here noted as they relate to each canal in chronological order, being repeated for 

 each canal to which they relate. 



