, creating a spatial discontinuity in water availability. Though much of the state receives ample
precipitation, there are several important spatial and temporal issues complicating the distribution of water. Due to the state's predominantly
Mediterranean climate regime, precipitation is nearly entirely confined to the months between October and April, meaning that water sources can be intermittent from year to year. Furthermore the extremely fertile
agricultural regions of the
San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California receive relatively little precipitation, while the coastal
urban nexuses of
Los Angeles and
San Francisco receive adequate precipitation but lack storage capacity. Finally, the broad
floodplains of the
Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers require extensive
hydrological engineering in order to be converted to agricultural land and to prevent
flooding. In this
environment clarity of water rights and fairness in distribution are essential, but competing rights doctrines and a system of adjudication based entirely on
litigation defeated attempts to formally codify water rights.
Gold Rush, statehood, and competing water doctrines The discovery of
gold by John Marshall at
Sutter's Mill and the annexation of the California territory by the
United States prompted a mass migration to the region. The new settlers brought with them
Old World and
East Coast attitudes toward water, but the realities of
gold extraction in the
Mother Lode region required a different standard. The
California Doctrine of water law, established in the California Supreme Court ruling over
Lux v. Haggin attempted to blend the two doctrines by endorsing the riparian right as the law of the land, but outlining the circumstances under which the appropriative right could be held as superior. Under
Lux v. Haggin, all private lands as well as public lands upon transfer to private ownership held riparian rights, but first priority could be given to an appropriator if the appropriative right had been established before riparian rights.
Prior legislation The legislature of California made several attempts in the second half of the 19th century to address issues related to reclamation, flooding, and the equitable distribution of newly privatized land. Major legislation of the period included the Reclamation of Swampland Act of 1861, the Green Act of 1868, and the
Wright Act of 1887. While these three acts represented different methods of dealing with California's particular water woes, they all proved inadequate. of 1861 was the first attempt to address issues of flooding and reclamation by creating a centralized plan to drain and convert the
Central Valley into agricultural land. To accomplish this the Act created the state's first independent agency in the Board of Swampland Commissioners, whose job was to design and administer a valley-wide flood plan, and authorized the creation of swampland districts. Lacking a complete understanding of the task they were undertaking however, the
engineers failed to erect adequate
levee systems and saw what work had been accomplished washed away by floodwaters. This failed experiment in top-down regulation reinforced public attitudes favoring
laissez faire principles of management. attempted to put the balance of power back into the hands of small landholders by organizing self-governing
irrigation districts. These irrigation districts were intended to act as a
special government controlled by the
community and having the power to break up large landholdings. The legislation had some measurable effect on average farm size, reflecting some limited breakup of large estates, but at the turn of the century 62% of agricultural land was covered in ownerships exceeding 1,000
acres. Ultimately irrigation districts were inadequate to effectively administer land and water rights because they relied on costly litigation to settle disputes. This along with a panoply of other shortcomings resulted in the Wright Act being viewed by California citizens as a failure. == Water Commission Act ==