The Present Status of the Irrigation Problem [pp. 40-50]

The Present S/a/us of the frri,,alion Problem.
hesitate. The conservative element was
aroused, and said it would be better by far
to submit to the decision of our highest
judicial tribunal, however wrong, than to
reverse it by such revolutionary methods.
Immediately it was perceived that the majority of people were with the conservatives.
The extra session came to naught, and the
doctrines of Lux vs. Haggin remain the
law of the land, with a growing feeling in
the community that the Court was right
after all.
I said the extra session came to nothing.
That is true so far as accomplishing anything in the way of a legislative solution of
the irrigation problem is concerned. But
the extra session is worth much more to us
than its cost, in this, that it aroused general
attention to the problem and to its exposition by the Court. It is not now possible
to carry through any measure connected with
irrigation without the severest scrutiny and
criticism being exercised. Whatever action
we now take will be the result of full and
intelligent discussion. If Lux vs. Haggin
is reversed, it will not be by violent revolution or by a Court packed for that purpose.
For the present it is the law of the land,
and no solution of the problem can be arrived at without making that decision a.most
important factor in the discussion.
How will it affect irrigation? What will
the law as there announced permit irrigation
companies and individuals to do?
But before discussing these questions, a
short sketch of the facts out of which the
inevitable conflict between appropriators of
water and riparian proprietors arose, is necessary. A better understanding of the facts
will tend to justify the action of the Court;
and also show what must be expected from
our Courts and the United States Courts in
any future litigation.
The American settlers in Southern California, as did the Mexican settlers before
them, found the climate so arid that, exeept
in favored localities, it was necessary to lead
the waters from the streams to their gardens
and orchards, if they were to obtain any
adequate return for their labors. They also
found that the best soils were along the
streams, where, the moisture being sufficient
to produce a vegetable growth, the land had,
in the course of ages, become enriched by
vegetable mold; while the lands farther
back were sandy or rocky, and had not accumulated a soil. Therefore the onlylands
taken up were along the water courses;
first, because water could easily be obtained
from the streams for irrigation, and second,
because the soil was better. Such land
became very valuable. Until recent date
none other in that country had any value
whatever, except for sheep pastures. All
settlers going into that region, all persons
investing in land there, for any purpose except pasturage, bought along the streams,
paying many times more therefor than
lands further back would have cost.
The same facts are true of all middle California. The present owner of a farm on a
stream in the Coast valleys or in the Sacramento Valley, if he were an early settler, selected his farm because of the contiguity of
that water course; and if he bought a farm
with a creek running through or along its
boundary, fromn an earlier settler or a Mexican grantee, he paid a largely increased
price on account of that creek. If he sells
his farm he can obtain a larger price because
of the water on it.
It may not be necessary to the successful
cultivation of his land that he should take
the water out of the creek for irrigation, but
his soil is made richer and his farm more
valuable because of that water. Take any
farm in California, no matter where, through
or along which a stream flows, turn away the
stream, and the value of that farm is greatly
depreciated. The owner's property is taken
from him. It is useless to argue that there
can be no property in running water.
Whether you call it property or not, every
one must admit that it enhances, and the
1887.]
41