366 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



this amount would cover the entire stream flow of maximum floods, even in a freshet 

 like that of 1895, the previous year. 



Claim No. 26, for 35 inches, represents a temporarj' appropriation made of the 

 stream some 4 miles below the dam. The flow at this point is intermittent at best, 

 but since the building of the dam is onlj- apparent after the reservoir is lilled. 



Claims No. 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, by the San Diego Land and Town Company 

 at different points in the Sweetwater Valley below the dam, are for the protection of 

 the well developments supplying the various pumping plants erected in the past two 

 years for obtaining an auxiliary supplj' to the system, rendered necessary by drought. 

 Claim No. 27 is for 500 inches and the others are for 1,000 inches each, or 4,500 

 inches in all. The}' are all claims upon the underflow, and, although they are each 

 of larger volume than the total amount which has been developed, they have all been 

 made valid to a greater or less extent by the construction of plants with which to 

 collect and draw the water to the surface, and make good the appropriation to the 

 utmost possible extent. 



The appropriation of subterranean water is legal according to a recent decision 

 of the California supreme court in the case of the Vineland Irrigation District i'. The 

 Azusa Irrigating Company et al. 



The following extract from the syllabus of the case (126 Cal., 486) gives the 

 general tenor of the decision on this important point, which had never previously' 

 been clearly decided: 



(1) The subsurface flow of streams in this State may l)e appropriated for useful purposes by proper 

 means for the development and use tliereof, with due regard to the prior rights of others in tlie stream. 

 Such appropriation is legal only in so far as it does not imperil or impair the superior rights of others 

 in the surface fiow of the stream. 



Reviewing the recorded claims to water from the Sweetwater River, as thej' 

 appear on the records, it is impossible for ain' person unfamiliar with the stream or 

 the country and its inhabitants to be able to judge which of the claims are valid and 

 which are not, which are repetitions and refilings, and which of any two or more 

 filings b}*^ the same parties are merely amendatorj' of previous filings or additions to 

 prior claims. There are 31 claims in all, aggregating 4,923,535 miner's inches under 

 a 4-inch pressure, while the average flow for thirteen j-ears has been but 1,000 inches. 

 The claims are, therefore, for about 5,000 times the existing supplj-. 



As far as the writer is able to judge but ten of these recorded claims, one of 

 which ten is quite indefinite as to amount, have been made good by actual appropria- 

 tion, viz, claims No. 15, 18, and 20, for 85,000 inches in the aggregate, for the supplv 

 of the Sweetwater Dam, and owned bj' the San Diego Land and Town Company; 

 claims No. 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, bj' the same company, covering an aggregate of 

 4,500 inches of the underflow of the stream below the dam; claim No. 17, by Charles 

 Ellis, on the Upper Sweetwater, of ''all the running water," and claim No. 24, by 

 Frederick D. C. Meyers, for 5,000 inches. The aggregate of the nine claims which 

 state definitely the volume claimed is 94,500 inches measured under a 4-inch pressure, 

 which is equivalent to 1,890 cubic feet per second. This great aggregate seems quite 

 moderate when compared with the extreme flood volume of the river, as the greatest 

 recorded flood — that of 1895 — was nearly ten times this quantity at the period of the 

 maximum flow. 



