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

nThe Present Status of the Irritgation Problem.
sive as it is possible to make it, then the
legislature should address itself to remedying the defect. But to attempt anything
else will be futile, and lead only to harassing litigation and ill feeling.
"The constitution provides that any
county may make and enforce within its
limits, all such local police, sanitary, and
other regulations as are not in conflict with
general laws."
It is very doubtful whether, under a
district system, anything can be done that a
Board of Supervisors may not do by virtue
of the foregoing provision.
The other plan, apparently quite popular,
is for the State to appropriate the flowing
waters. Such a scheme is visionary, and,
if attempted, will occasion great expense
without any benefit whatever, except to the
few at the expense of the many. There is
not now a stream in the State to which
vested rights have not attached either by appropriation or by purchase of the land over
which it flows. The cost of condemnation
for the benefit of the State would be immense, as would be the cost of machinery
for selling the waters to the farmers. Experience has shown that the State cannot do
any work cheaply.
If the purchasers of water frorntl the State
should be required to pay a price therefor
sufficient to reimburse the State for its outlay, the price would be so great that no
farmer could afford to make the purchase.
If a less sum of money should be charged
the consumer, then the State would be a
heavy loser by the transaction. The loss
would have to be made up by taxation. In
other words, the State at large, or at best a
district, must be taxed for the benefit of
farmers using water for irrigation. It ought
not to require argument to show that in free
institutions this cannot be done. The attempt on the part of the State to carry out
any such scheme is beyond and outside the
legitimate province of government.
If the State already owned the waters,
such a scheme for its' distribution might be
successful, as it is in Italy, provided we are
willing to so far change the spirit of our institutions as to make the State something
more than the conservator of peace and order as heretofore. But the State does not
own the waters and cannot get them save at
great expense, which must be met by taxation.
It is only in a small part of the State, relatively, that irrigation is an absolute necessity. Shall the great bulk of the wealth and
population of California be taxed for the
benefit of that portion?
The conclusions to which this paper has
been tending -must have been apparent all
along, viz: That the only solution of the irrigation problem that is possible is within
the lines laid down in the case of Lux vs.
Haggin.
The law there announced is just, and not
inconsistent with our needs. It may work
some hardships in Southern California, but
it is the law. And no such injustice is possible under it, even there, as would have ensued if the appropriators had succeeded. A
monopoly of the waters by wealthy corporations would surely have occurred.
If our Supreme Court had not come to
the conclusion it did, the Supreme Court of
the United States would have protected the
rights of all bank owners who derived title
from the national government.
I believe the principles enunciated in that
case, if followed, will work a speedy solution of the inherent difficulties of the problem, and with the least possible friction and
expense. To attempt any other scheme will
cause delay, immense expense, and finally
come to naught.
Wgarren Olney.
50
[Jan.