350 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



(9) The supreme court of California should be requested to appoint an expert 

 nonpartisan commission to frame an irrigation law suitable to the needs of the State 

 and embracing the principles above outlined. 



REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING RECOMMENDATIONS. 



The provision that the members of the proposed tribunal be appointed by the 

 supreme court will inspire public confidence that they will be as far removed from 

 political or other undesirable influence as it is possible to have them. 



A statement that decisions of this tribunal shall be "final" will doubtless arouse 

 much opposition. The right of appeal should be preserved, and it should lie direct 

 to the supreme court. There is no reason whj- a claim adjudicated bj' this tribunal 

 should be subject to review b}' anj' except the court of last resort; nor should 

 attorneys be admitted to practice before this tribunal. To permit these things is to 

 perpetuate 'the present system of endless and exhaustive litigation. 



Owing to the unfortunate history of the former State engineer's department and 

 the present growing hostilitj- to the continued n)ultiplication of bureaus, commissions, 

 etc., in this State, strong opposition to the creation of this organization is appre- 

 hended. Nevertheless, it is essential to the plan and should be urged strenuously. 



The complete subordination of riparian to appropriative rights will probably 

 secure the desired end as well as the abolition of the former. 



It would seem that it is still within the power of the people to declare that an 

 existing water right should become attached to the land whereon it is now used. If 

 so, this should be done, as it will be cumbersome and inconvenient to have two 

 general classes of rights, the one fixed and the other movable at will. 



Navigation and irrigation along the rivers of arid America are as incompatible 

 as riparian rights and rights by appropriation. Speaking generally, there is far more 

 arable land in the arid region than can be watered from an}- source whatever. The 

 greatest good to the greatest number of people will be secured from these streams 

 when their navigation is rendered impossible by reason of the consumption of water 

 by irrigation. The amount of water required to maintain navigation, even in a canal 

 or canalized river, is enormous, and the benefit derived by the public from its use in 

 this manner is vastly less than would follow from its use for irrigation. There is no 

 "divine right" of navigation. The fact that this industry has long enjoyed special 

 privileges and the paternal care of governments to whom irrigation is unknown is no 

 reason why it should continue to be so nurtured in a region where the waters of rivers 

 are needed for a moi'e beneficial purpose. There is probablj' no river navigation 

 which does not constantl}^ or at least frequently, require liberal State or national 

 aid in order to maintain its existence. Withdraw this artificial stimulus and rapid 

 decline will follow. Were notice to be given now to the inland navigation interests 

 of California that henceforth no further financial aid will be given them, but that, on 

 the conti-ary, it will be the policy of State and nation to encourage to the fullest extent 

 the use of such streams for irrigation, such action would prevent further expansion 

 of navigation and make it feasible to purchase or condemn existing rights whenever 

 such a course ma}'^ be found desirable. To attempt the maintenance of navigation 

 on any stream in arid America by means of impounded water would be a waste well- 

 nigh criminal. The use of waste and seepage waters for this purpose is a very dif- 



