TWENTY-EIGHTH FRUIT-GROWERS' CONVENTION. 



47 



THE DUTY OF WATER.. 



By T. S. VAN DYKE, of San Diego. 



In thirty-five years' residence west of the Mississippi I have seen 

 nothing more ridiculous than the financial struggle to get water into 

 the upper end of a ditch for ignorance to throw away at the lower end. 

 While I have done my share toward getting more water, I believe it far 

 more important to learn to use what we have ; for the amount used is 

 actually less than the amount wasted, except in Southern California, 

 where we are so poor in water that we have to be stingy with it. 



Yet no question is more difficult than the amount of water necessary 

 to perfect a certain crop without waste. It depends so much upon the 

 nature of the crop, the soil, the climate, the tillage, the handling of the 

 water, the temperature of the water, the size of the irrigating head, and 

 the length of time one can have it without interfering with the rights 

 of others on the same ditch, as well as on the rainfall and many other 

 things, that the question is much like asking how much food it takes 

 to feed an animal. Dividing the total area irrigated by the number 

 of inches or feet of water at the head of the ditch bears a painful 

 resemblance to ascertaining the duty of meat by dividing the amount 

 delivered at the back door of our big hotels by the number of guests 

 on the register. Yet worthless as it is, this is about the only way 

 of finding the duty of water in the greater part of the West. 



We have far better data in Southern California, though most people 

 could make nothing out of them. The answer can only be approxi- 

 mated, and then only by those who know how to handle the hoe in the 

 field in the intelligent manner that years of painful economy have 

 taught us. For there are too many points to be considered that no one 

 else knows, and engineers generally consider the hoe beneath their 

 dignity. 



The question resolves itself into the question of waste. Waste from 

 carelessness or laziness is of too many varieties for consideration; but 

 there is another kind, which is economic waste, or really not waste at 

 all. To insure full wetting in time to allow others to use the water 

 some must run off the lower end of the land, and the shortness of the 

 time allowed the irrigator may make this waste considerable. So the 

 nature of the crop may make it cheaper to waste water than labor, 

 while its value may not justify tight aqueducts as oranges might. Com- 

 mon prudence demands a reserve held for emergencies, which in good 

 years might have to run away unused. For such a place as Riverside 

 to base its supply on what may be required by young trees with an 

 ordinary crop in years of fair rainfall would be very unwise. It should 

 be based on the requirements of old trees in full bearing in a short 

 year. For the crop is so valuable that a shrinkage in such a year would 



