44 



TWENTY-EIGHTH FRUIT-GROWERS' CONVENTION. 



Notwithstanding this fact, strenuous efforts have been made recently 

 to make radical changes in our irrigation laws, so as to make them 

 conform to systems of other States not so desirable as our own. 



Radical changes in irrigation or any other laws are to be avoided at 

 all times, but especially should they be avoided when no improvement 

 is made by the change. 



The laws of California touching on irrigation matters are not perfect 

 by any means, but we have the basis for the best system in the world at 

 the present time, and all that we need is to perfect that system. 



If California had a clear field in which to commence work — if all the 

 land belonged to the Government and there were no people here to secure 

 vested rights — so that we could start from the foundation and build up, 

 it would be different; but it must be remembered that every step taken 

 to-day in the way of a radical change in our irrigation laws runs up 

 against vested right snags at every turn. 



To illustrate: In the early history of the State, the old law of riparian 

 rights — which was a beneficial law in a country like England, but 

 which is not applicable to an arid country — was made a part of the law 

 of the State of California. Under a rigid construction of this law, there 

 can be no such thing as irrigation, because under that law all water 

 taken from a stream must be returned thereto again undiminished in 

 quantity and uncontaminated in quality. Under that law, extensive 

 rights accrued, so that it was impossible to repeal the law, only so far 

 as streams were concerned on which rights had not accrued. 



If the irrigation public would devote their time and attention to the 

 perfection of the system which we now have, and which has proven so 

 beneficial and so nearly perfect in its application to our needs, instead 

 of trying to wipe out this system and establish in its place another 

 system that has not proven to be superior, much more progress could 

 be made toward a perfect system. 



A great cry has been made in favor of public ownership of irrigation 

 systems. This demand rests on a solid foundation. But what is public 

 ownership? Certainly there can be public ownership without placing 

 that ownership in the hands of the United States Government, or in 

 the hands of the State Government, or even in the hands of the County 

 Government. The people who are interested in a particular irrigation 

 system should own that system. The people of the City of Los Angeles 

 would not want either the County, State, or National Governments to 

 own their domestic water system. The mutual water company system 

 is public ownership, pure and simple. The closer together we can get 

 the ownership and the users of water, the better. If the people of River- 

 side own the Riverside irrigation plant, through the machinery of a 

 mutual water company, what more public ownership is necessary ? No 

 public ownership can be more effectually accomplished under any other 

 proposed plan. 



