334 IRRIfiATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



On the contrary, the actuating principle evidentlj^ is to get as much as possible. 

 Pursuing this polic}', it is exceptional to find a notice which does not claim all the 

 water of the stream, whether it be large or small. Fi'equently all this is amplified 

 to embrace "All that ii* now flowing or that ma}- flow at any future time;" "All that 

 is above or below the surface;" "All the water in this canyon developed and undevel- 

 oped;" "All the water flowing or that can be made to flow;" "All the water flowing 

 and that can be developed and diverted either by ditch, dam, well, or tunnel." One 

 man makes this brief but forcible declaration: "I claim all the water rights of this 

 creek." Where the claimant complies with the code provision requiring that the 

 number of inches claimed shall be stated, it is customary to claim a practically 

 impossible quantit3^ Large numbers are almost as easily written as small ones, and 

 there is no extra cost for recording the notice. Hence no inducement exists for the 

 claimant to exercise moderation in the statement of his claim. Many notices claim a 

 specified number of inches, Avith the inconsistent qualification "more or less." 



It is not at all suprising that a great man}- persons seeking to give a legal notice 

 of their claims to water should stumljle at such an incomprehensible unit of measure 

 as the "inch measui'ed under a l-inch pressure." Many of their efl'orts to obey the 

 law in this respect are ludicrous. One claims "all the water, amounting to 150 

 inches bj' hydraulic pressure of -1-feet measurement." Another notice reads, "The 

 undersigned claim 4 feet of water from under a i-inch pressure." Another, "to the 

 extent of lOO square inches, miner's measurement." Still another, " 100,000,000 

 cubic feet." 



The provisions of the code show clearlj- the intent of the legislature, that before 

 any person seeking to appropriate water can acquire any right therein he must have 

 formed a definite plan of action so far perfected in detail as to enable him to set forth 

 in his preliminary notice the more prominent features of his plan. Thus the law 

 requires that the posted and recorded notice shall state the purpose for which water 

 is claimed and the place of intended use, the means of diversion, and the size of the 

 proposed conduit. Some of the smaller claims attempt to do this in good faith, but 

 it is a more popular custom to evade these requirements by the broadest generalities. 

 This is especially noticeable in the larger claims which are generally for speculative 

 purposes. It is conmion to find notices claiming for all possible jjurposes which the 

 ingenuity of the claimant can devise, and specifying nearl}' the whole of southern 

 California as the place of intended use, that the diversion is to be accomplished by 

 means of "headworks," and the water is to be conveyed by "conduits of suflicient 

 size to carry the said amount." Sometimes the latter clause is expanded to include 

 ever}' form of conduit known to the claimant — for example: "Bj- tunnels, cuts, 

 eiirtheii. ditches; canals lined with masonr}-, concrete, stone, brick, or other matei'ials; 

 flumes of wood or metal; pipes of wood, steel, iron, cement, vitrified clay, or other 

 substances; all to be of sufficient size for the purpose," or, "of such size as a 

 competent hydraulic engineer may recommend." 



Although the claimants are usually most liberal to themselves, wording their 

 claims in phrases l)road enough to cover all future contingencies, instances are num- 

 erous in which the notice shows that its author had no adequate conception of the 

 quantity of water claimed or the carrying capacity of the specified conduit. One 

 proposes to divert 200 inches 1)}' means of an iron pipe 2 inches in diameter for the 



