126 
most of those from other causes can be met by ordinary resources of science. The 
most common source of loss, and the greatest, is from lack of moisture at the proper 
time. Such loss, when it occurs, affects more the profit of the farmer. A certain 
yield is needed to pay the expense. Above that the yield is almost clear profit. 
Hence, while the same business considerations govern the relation of the expendi- 
tures to the return, yet the measure of the value of irrigation is more than indicated 
by the excess crop. It may mean not only a profit, but prevent a failure more or 
less complete of the expenditures and effort that have previously been made. From 
a business standpoint it may mean the success of the effort otherwise made. In such 
cases irrigation may well command an artificial value. 
Where irrigation is thus available it often means a greater freedom of choice in the 
selection of crops, thus a power to change according to the demands of the market; 
hence, again, a greater return and an increase in the value of the land. It also tends 
to the stability of agricultural returns. This is a consideration of considerable 
importance from an economic standpoint, for as the risks are reduced the relation 
between effort and return becomes more certain, a distinct heartening is given to 
zeal for preparation, and a corresponding effect on the character and stability of the 
people. 
The above conditions apply essentially to cultivated or hoed crops and to intensive 
agriculture, and in their broader characteristics apply to humid as well as arid 
regions. The methods of application and the considerations which govern are much 
the same in both cases. 
A third cause for irrigation applies more peculiarly to humid or cold countries. 
In a dry region, or where grain or fruit are sought, irrigation must be practiced with 
temperance, and in such cases, irrigation in a wet country is of the nature of insur- 
ance. Where leaf or stalk or foliage development are sought, the conditions are 
different. Here the more water applied the greater is the development. This 
lends itself peculiarly to hay or grass crops. An adage common to mountainous 
countries of Europe is, the more water the more grass. 
This lends itself especially to grass and to dairying and the practice of soiling. 
Singularly enough, there seems to be almost no case of irrigation with moderate 
quantities of water — that is, intermediate between the small amounts for hoed crops 
and the excessive amounts for grass crops in cold and wet countries. The practice 
is common in all mountainous regions of Europe — Sweden and Norway, Austria and 
Germany, France and Switzerland. Water is applied profusely, enough to cover 
the land several hundred feet in depth in the course of a year. In one case of actual 
measurement over 2,000 feet were applied in one year. Of course, this is an extreme 
case and only important as emphasizing the fact that there is a place for irrigation 
under the most humid conditions. In the valley of the Po, where the rainfall 
averages about 36 inches, something like 3,000,000 acres are irrigated. Most of the 
irrigation is for grass. Large expenditures are made for preparing the land for this 
purpose. The same methods apply to the mountainous regions of this country. In 
such cases, irrigation is given, not so much to supply moisture; it may be con- 
sidered as the application of an exceedingly weak fertilizer. There are, however, 
complex relations between the water and the soil and between the water and the 
crops, some of which were developed by Mangon as long as forty years ago, but need 
further study and elucidation. 
It is hardly necessary to say that the methods must vary according to the purpose 
and according to the conditions. As the conditions infinitely vary the details are 
also infinitely varied. 
There are some fundamental differences between the East and the West. In the 
East, however necessary or beneficial, it would seem that irrigation must be essen- 
tially an individual enterprise. This is aside from the popular reluctance to adopt a 
new practice, but the laws and customs have grown up in a country where it has been 
necessary to take away rather than to apply water. The development is therefore 
hampered by the common-law doctrine of riparian rights. Development must take 
place on small or insignificant streams, or through other than gravity sources, where 
mill or navigation lights will not be interfered with. These conflicting rights may be 
adjusted — as they have been in France — but this adjustment remains for the future. 
The doctrine of riparian rights will prevent large enterprises, except in exceptional 
circumstances. At present in the humid States the only way to acquire the right 
is to break the law. If broken long enough, a right may become vested and acquired 
by prescription. This is, of course, not a situation to encourage large investment, 
even if other conditions were favorable. 
In the arid States it is recognized that a diversion of water is a necessity. The 
essence of the Kansas-Colorado case now before the Supreme Court is in the conflict 
of these two conditions or ideas — one where water must remain in its channel, the 
other that water may be diverted and beneficially used. The one is proper for a wet 
