TO A WATER MONOPOLIST.

F all the public comment which has appeared with reference to the Constructive League, the letter of Dr. Charles Van Norden to the Sacramento Record-Union is much the most spirited, intelligent and entertaining. The letter in full is as follows:

MR. SMYTHE'S LECTUre.

Eds. "Record-Union": Will you kindly permit me, as one who has had experience in matters pertaining to irrigation, to make some comments upon the address of William E. Smythe, President of the State Constructive League, in the Assembly Chamber?

The speaker assured us that for fifteen years he had made the reclaiming of our arid lands by irrigation his personal thought, "his church and his religion." It seems strange that one thus presumably equipped should show so much ignorance of the everyday facts of his subject.

He stated that while the ownership of water had been abandoned in many countries, in California it was still legally recognized; although he ought to have known that the Constitution declares water a public use"; that water-rights lapse on failure of service, and that the law makes all distributers of water common carriers." There is no ownership of water claimed by intelligent persons in this State, and no absolute water-rights. Storage companies, at great expense, build reservoirs and hold back in them a portion of the spring surplus, thereby lessening the overflow in the valley and delivering to the cultivator this water, when needed, for irrigation. They charge, not for water, but for storage and distribution.

Mr. Smythe calls this bondage, and he proclaims the dependent ranchers as "white slaves." Does he not know that the law enjoins upon the Supervisors of each county-who, by the way, are the representatives of these same ranchers-the duty of fixing the rates, and that the distribution is under all the usual statutes governing common carriers? The white slaves (who would not be there at all were it not for the beneficent activity of the reservoir owners) are no more under the thumb of the storage companies than of their butchers or grocers. Indeed, the shoe is on the other foot, and the companies at the mercy of the voters.

The speaker gave us glowing pictures of the great valley, when all overflow waters should be balanced by storage, and when all acres should be under irrigation, ignoring the facts that, owing to the excessive evaporation of this country in summer, the reservoirs must be constructed high up on the divide, that reservoir sites are few and far between, and that the water must be conveyed to the users in ditches, pipe-lines, tunnels and flumes at vast expense. The South Yuba Water Company, which has probably the largest storage system in this State, has developed nearly every feasible reservoir site in its vast water-shed, and yet stores but oneeighth of the average annual waterfall. Its engineers calculate that by raising and strengthening dams, and by building on all remaining feasible sites, it could double its present storage and thus utilize one-fourth of the average annual precipitation. No doubt the Sierra everywhere is under like conditions. One-fourth of the average precipitation could be stored, the remaining three-fourths must come down the gorges to flood the valley. It is evident that in years of excessive precipitation the amount to come down would thus be more than the entire precipitation of average or poor years. As to irrigating the exhausted wheat ranches with water from the

mountains, it is a vain dream. Owing to sipage and evaporation, the storage water, were there enough of it-and there is not nor ever will becannot probably be brought lower than the edge of the great valley.

We find that one inch of water on the divide becomes but one-half inch at Newcastle, and only one-quarter of an inch at Rocklin; it would not suffice to bedew the land near the river. None but theorists can blink this fact.

Then as to the scheme, essentially socialistic, for State ownership of reservoirs and distribution of the water. Says the orator: "Let the State own the reservoirs and in the dry season turn the water into the rivers for the lessees of land (for ownership in land also is to be abolished) to take therefrom and use."

Does not the lecturer know that the rivers of the Sierra are profound gorges, and that water once turned into them can be extricated only by very expensive flumes, laid on benches cut into the cliffs? The South Yuba Water Company finds it necessary to maintain 400 miles of ditch, pipe, flume and tunnel lines to reach its customers. So must the State do if it undertake to go into the irrigation business. Imagine the enormous expenditure of irrigating Northern California, the construction supervised by our political bosses and corrupt legislatures, and the business run by place hunters. A State in which jobbery characterizes public life, and which is dominated by demagogues and bosses, is not likely to try this ex. periment; and if it did venture to do so would install an Augean stable, whose stench would rise to heaven. It will be long before even the irrigator himself will consent to turn over his most precious interests to the tender mercies of politicians.

Much that the speaker has said about the confusion of water-right laws and the wisdom of irrigating all lands within the reach of storage supply was admirable, and it is a pity that one so delightfully enthusiastic and well meaning should mar his discourse and weaken his argument by inaccuracies of statement. The general fault of Mr. Smythe's position is his illusory claim that individualistic enterprise wisely controlled by law can be successfully displaced by socialistic methods of popular government.

It is a great privilege for one so ignorant as myself concerning irrigation laws and practice to sit at the feet of a truly disinterested and patriotic authority like Dr. Van Norden (of the South Yuba Water Company) and take a few primer lessons in the subject with which I have been dallying for a good many years. It is inspiring to be told that there isn't much water in the Sacramento Valley anyhow, and that if there were much water it would all evaporate before it could be brought to the edge of the valley, and that even if it could be brought there it would do little or no good to the exhausted wheat ranches." But it is really discouraging to learn that we can never have any public works in this State because the attempt at popular government is a failure, and nothing survives of the institutions bequeathed to us by the fathers, except "our political bosses and corrupt legislatures."

At first blush it would seem well for those who have been trying to improve the conditions of living in California, and to make homes for new millions, "to go way back and sit down"

(as they say in the comic opera), unloading the burden of citizenship upon the ample and willing shoulders of Dr. Van Norden and the South Yuba Water Company. But, on second thought, it seems well to persist for a while, in view of the fact that many thousands of people are working earnestly, even if mistakenly, to create a better and greater California.

My genial critic appears to be well satisfied with the present water laws, although his reference to the "confusion" resulting from them implies that they are not, after all, of the best. On the other hand, there are a great many people in California, including some of the patrons of the Yuba Water Company, who think these laws are bad. Among those holding this opinion are the gentlemen who served on last year's United States Irrigation Commission and all the irrigation experts in the civilized world who have studied our laws-always excepting Dr. Van Norden.

The Doctor says there is no such thing as ownership of water in California and that his customers are no more under the thumb of the storage companies than of their butchers or grocers."

66

What is "ownership of water"? It is secure possession. Who holds secure possession of the water supply which fills the reservoirs and ditches of the South Yuba Water Company? Is it anybody except the company itself? Can those whose lands are dependent upon that supply get water from any other source ? If not, in what sense does anybody but that company own" the water? The Doctor says the company "charges not for water, but for storage and distribution." Very well, then, if the water should be taken away from the company it would lose nothing. It would still have left its facilities for storage and distribution. That is what it "owns," and that is what it charges for." This, of course, is a mere verbal quibble.

66

The valuable thing which the South Yuba Water Company really owns and sells and rents and collects tolls for is the melting snow of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Its control of that natural element without which men cannot live (for the Doctor himself says the people "would not be there at all" except for this enterprise) is the basis of its existence. Take the water away, and all its reservoirs and canals would not bring five cents in the market. The water is owned as a private monopoly. is sold as a commodity.

It

President Roosevelt has solemnly declared in his message to Congress. "Private ownership of water apart from land cannot prevail without causing enduring wrong." If Dr. Van Norden wants to take the ground that private ownership of water apart from land is a good thing for the people of California, he has a

right to do so; but to pretend that monopoly is no more involved in the case of a company which has secured absolute control of the only source of supply than in the case of the butchers and grocers of Newcastle and Rocklin is an insult to the common intelligence. If water were as abundant as air, and as easily available for the ordinary uses of mankind, the matter would be wholly different. But the truth is that water is the vital element in a land where irrigation is necessary, and that the man who owns the water practically owns the land. If Dr. Van Norden does not know this, the consumers under his ditches do know it.

It is true that there is something in our laws about "public use" and "common carriers," and about "water-rights lapse on failure of service." It is also true that there is no means of enforcing even such poor laws as we have, except by constant resort to the courts. Streams are over-appropriated to a ridiculous extent. The water is notoriously wasted in many instances. There is no attempt at public supervision. The riparian doctrine still endures to annoy irrigators and block the wheels of progress. There is no way of knowing, except by means of litigation, whether appropriations are being used in good faith. And litigation is expensive and tiresome-a luxury to be engaged in to any profit only by large companies and not by individual farmers of small means. The distribution of water is frequently attended by hardship and violence. I do not say that all these evils exist in the territory served by the South Yuba Water Company. (The more perfect the monopoly secured upon a given source, the less friction among consumers.) But I do say that all these evils are rife in the California irrigation industry as the logical outcome of the bad laws which I am fighting and which Dr. Van Norden is defending.

Supervisors have the power to fix rates within certain limitations. This plan has worked badly more often than otherwise, resulting in long litigation over water contracts. So long as we have private ownership of water apart from land, there must be some public regulation of rates; but it should not be left to interested parties, nor to those chosen exclusively by interested parties. It should be done by a board of experts under the State government. This is one of the reforms advocated by the Constructive League. It is fully as much in the interest of those who sell water as in the interest of those who buy it.

In referring to the Doctor's comment on storage possibilities, it is necessary for me to remark that I was considering, in my address at the Capitol, the situation throughout the State, and not in a restricted locality. The irrigation expert of the United States government has officially stated that water is available

for 12,000,000 acres in the Sacramento Valley. I agree that we have had too much guesswork about these matters and that at the earliest possible moment we should get upon the basis of exact information. That is another thing we are striving for through the California Water and Forest Association and the Constructive League. State and national appropriations to the amount of $200,000 would have been available for this purpose a year ago except for the Governor's veto of Senate Bill No. 7. When this scientific work has been done, we shall know how nearly correct Dr. Van Norden is when he says: As to irrigating the exhausted wheat ranches with water from the mountains, it is a vain dream none but theorists can blink this fact." In time we shall find out the name of the "theorist" in this particular instance.

66

But all this is aside from the main issue. The fundamental difference between Dr. Van Norden and myself is this: He believes in the private monopoly of water, and I believe in the public monopoly of water-in the ownership by the people and for the people of all the works designed for the storage and distribution of water upon the soil of California. To put the matter in the Doctor's own words: "The general fault of Mr. Smythe's position is his illusory claim that individualistic enterprise wisely controlled by law, can be successfully displaced by socialistic methods of popular government."

Irrigation was not discovered yesterday. It is about the oldest thing of which we have any knowledge. Behind my illusory claim" that absolute public control of the water supply is better than any form of private speculation in this great element of natural wealth stands the experience of the centuries. Behind this "illusory claim" stands the deliberate verdict of the civilized world. Behind this "illusory claim" stands the solemn declaration of both political parties in their last national platforms and the judgment of the President of the United States, as expressed in his official communication to Congress. On the other side of the question there is arrayed a little group of enterprising men who are seeking to get possession of every trickling stream in our mountains so that they may make merchandise of the melting snow and levy perpetual tribute upon future generations.

The man who owns an acre of ground that requires irrigation should also own the water which is essential to its profitable cultivation. Water and land should be inalienably united in a single ownership. This result is best accomplished when the water is found on the irrigator's own land. Thus the man with a well and a pump is the most independent.

Next to this is the