WATER APPROPRIATION FROM KINGS RIVER. 317 



It thus happens that very large areas of the lands classed as irrigated and benefited 

 by canal water no longer have the water spread over their surface. The drainage 

 works thus far introduced are all merely local, and no systematic attempt to prevent 

 an undesirable encroachment of the ground water upon the surface soils nor to 

 intercept the frequent freshet floods of the small foothill streams has yet been 

 made. 



THE PRESENT SITUATION. 



To terminate vexatious litigation between the users of water from Kings River 

 a number of agreements have been entered into amounting to a mutual recognition 

 of rights of water. Rights thus conceded are not defined by a judicial tribunal, and 

 such agreements are probably without force and efl'ect as against any other claimants. 

 There is in such agreements more or less danger that amounts of water may be 

 mutually conceded far in excess of the amounts actually appropriated and put to 

 beneficial use, the foundation being thereby laid for obstructing the putting of the 

 river's surplus to anj' new uses. To give such agreements greater force, friendly 

 lawsuits are sometimes instituted, and. on the basis of the testimony furnished, decrees 

 are rendered confirming them. This would be a step in the right direction if the 

 machinery of the court were such that the facts could be verified, and if, at the same 

 time, the rights of other appropriators were under considei-ation and could also be 

 thoroughly investigated. It does not appear that at this writing the right to the u.se 

 of water from the river has been clearlj- established, in so far as quantity to be 

 diverted is concerned, for a single Kings River canal. The agriculturist, therefore, 

 whose whole interest depends upon a continued supply of iri'igation water and upon 

 the rights of the canal from which he is supplied, can not be secure in his position 

 until this question of right to use is settled. The delay in the settlement of all these 

 matters is largel}' due to the fact that the appropriators, who were in most cases 

 landowners or corporations formed by landowners, preferred to submit to a certain 

 measure of injustice rather than to enter upon expensive litigation. Now that 

 demand at times calls for more water than the streams can supply, the evil results of 

 permitting every water user to regulate his own taking are becoming apparent. 

 The irrigator is forced into court to protect himself, and attempts are made to adjudi- 

 cate rights. The results are not satisfactory; nothing short of an injunction issued 

 by some judicial tribunal will shut down the headgate of an upstream canal which, 

 by reason of its position, has the first chance at the water of the stream, but whose 

 rights are perhaps subject to the prior rights of many of the downstream canals or 

 ditches. But the shutting down of the gate is generally unnecessary. Regulation 

 is required, and the regulation should be in the hands of some State authority. 



The recourse which has been had to the courts and which has led to the issuance 

 of injunctions against canals and ditches, now serves to emphasize the need of such 

 regulations. This is recognized, as already stated, bj^ the canal owners, who, by 

 forming combinations of canal interests, strengthen the cause of one irrigated section 

 against adverse interests. They endeavor in such cases to secure by agreement with 

 possible adverse claimants a recognition of their rights, thereby securing in a measure 

 the protection which the laws of the State have failed to give. 



No appropriator, however small his claim may be to the use of water, should be 



