70 NOTES ON ADMINISTRATION OF WATER SUPPLY. 



have been paralyzed, Canals which have a capacity for supplying 

 40,000 acres, with but little addition, continue to supply only 

 20,000 acres, as they did when the doubt was first raised. Only 

 under most exceptional circumstances or on the smallest scale are 

 any new projects being carried out in California. Where, as at 

 Ontario or Redlands, extensive expenditure is being incurred, it is 

 because the question of riparian rights cannot be raised. The 

 proprietors of existing canals are, many of them, involved in a 

 web of litigation ; the legal expenses on one canal alone, which is 

 not a special subject of contention, having added £4,000 a year 

 to its cost of maintenance." Since these words of Mr. Deakin 

 were written, the public of California has been thoroughly aroused 

 to the pitch of exasperation by a decision of the highest legal 

 tribunal of that State. This decision, which considerably 

 aggravated the state of uncertainty so lucidly described by Mr. 

 Deakin, resulted in the establishment of anti-riparian leagues, the 

 members of which were pledged to use their best exertions to have 

 the Law of Riparian Rights repealed, and something more 

 reasonable substituted for it. 



When we turn to England for information on the subject of 

 water conservancy we are confronted by a state of affairs which, 

 on this point at least, justifies the statement that the English laws 

 are the best in the world for the lawyers. A concise statement 

 of the British Law of Riparian Rights appeared some time ago in 

 the columns of the "Sydney Morning Herald," under the well- 

 known initials of Mr. Oliver, the Parliamentary Draftsman, who 

 has made a special study of this subject. According to this law, 

 a riparian proprietor has a right only to what one authority terms 

 the "ordinary use," and what another terms the "reasonable use" 

 of the water. All authorities seem to agree that no person has a 

 right to take so much of the water of a river as will injuriously 

 affect the supply lower down ; and some appear to lay down the 

 general rule that every riparian owner who makes use of the 

 water of a river is bound to return the water undiminished in 

 quantity and unaltered in quality. One high authority is of 

 opinion that a person has a right to put a dam across a stream 

 in his own property, and another equally high authority has ruled 

 that no person has any right to obstruct the flow of a stream. 

 Where large interests are involved, the question as to the exact 

 meaning of the terms "ordinary" and "reasonable" as applied to 

 the use of water, would afford a wide field for legal hair-splitting. 

 Then the question as to what quantity of water, if any, could be 

 taken out of a stream without injuriously affecting interests lower 

 down, would present another series of difficulties. Take, for 

 instance, the case of such a river as the Macquarie, which is 

 frequently dry at Warren when there is a good supply flowing 



