Irrigation Laws in the States.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7062, 7 February 1893, Page 3

Irrigation Laws in the States.

A report on irrigation' in the Western States of America says :—Private capital and private enterprise has done everything, and the State practically nothing. In only two or three cases is the water supply in municipal hands. The evils which have resulted from diversity of interests between different irrigated areas dependent upon a common water supply has, however, induced a movement in the direction of municipal control. California has adopted a law known as the <r Wright District Code,” by which the residents of any locality served with water from a common source for irriga! ion purposes may form themselves into a municipal district, with power to borrow money, construct works, and levy rates. Under this law it is also competent for the council of the district to condemn any previously-existing works - paying the owners compensation out of municipal funds —if they are deemed injurious to the effective working of the scheme finally decided upon as beat for the whole district. One or two other states have adopted this law, and others are moving in the direction of legislation with a zest proportionate to the urgency of the matter to their citizens. Snob as a law as the Wright Code is an absolute necessity. In the absence of any general law defining riparian rights, the first settlers in a district have naturally occupied the spots most favourable for economical irrigation, and without any regard to those who may follow them, or to the most effective use of the water, i Later settlers have occupied positions higher up the same watercourse, with an equal right to the water, and in a position to jeopardise the industry of those lower down stream by exhausting or diverting the water. Not only has the absenoejof any general control induced this undesirable state of affairs in contiguous localities, but it has brought about similar difficulties upon a large scale between state and state, as in the case of the River Colorado, which drains portions of the state of the same name, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, and Arizona. An official report dealing with this embarrassment says : “ already it has become a question for Congress, shall the agriculture of Kansas be destroyed in favour of Colorado, or shall the agriculture of Colorado be destroyed in favour of Kansas ?” 'The same report adds that, if all the waters of the country are to be properly utilised it will be necessary to buy out vested rights to the “ amount of several hundred million dollars.” In the meanwhile such purchases and manicipalieation of such works as is taking place, the cost being spread over a large and greatly benefited area, is not proving an undue burden to landowners, being more than compensated for _ by the cheaper rate at which water is obtained by the excision cf private profits and absolute security which is ensured. The revenue is raised upon land apart from its improvements. This provision was hotly assailed at the time of its first proposal, bub it has forced large areas' under cultivation which were being beld for speculative purposes.