USA > California > Riverside County > History of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, Volume I > Part 14
USA > California > San Bernardino County > History of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, Volume I > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79
The third show followed closely on a "big freeze," and gloom had marked the citrus industry with a spirit of depression. During the fifth show a discussion arose over one of the exhibitor's features, that of the Pacific Electric, and its "diving girls." President McNabb introduced a new department, and appointed Mrs. R. V. Hadden to take charge of the by-products. The seventh show became an armament of battle, nearly every feature spoke loudly of war; the eighth, the great question was whether to have a show or not ; the ninth the "Dove of Peace" domi- 1 ated every feature.
CHAPTER VIII
IRRIGATION
The irrigable section of San Bernardino County consists of the area of 325,640 acres lying in San Bernardino Valley, which, while containing less than one-fortieth of the acreage of the county as it was at the time of its creation, is, however, the largest and most productive valley in Southern California. It is not a misstatement to make to say that front its soil springs greater agricultural wealth to the acre than any other known section of the world.
To understand this intense fertility it may be well to secure an idea of the topography of the region. At the eastern apex of the valley the San Bernardino Mountains converge in the peaks, each of which is more than 11,000 feet above sea level-the San Bernardino and Grayback. The San Bernardino Range stretches along the north, with the Cucamonga Hills, the Coast Range lies to the east, and the valley on the south is bounded by the San Jacinto Range. Rising in the highest San Bernardinos and entering the valley at its extreme eastern point, the Santa Ana River flows, south of the valley's center, throughout its entire length, and then breaks through the Coast Range to the Coast Plains beyond. The drainage of the surrounding mountains pours into the valley from all sides through numerous water courses, the most important of these being the Plunge, San Antonio, City, Twin, Lytle, Cajon Pass and Devil's Canon creeks, on the north; and the Temescal, Mill and San Timoteo creeks, on the south. A number of these streams, after flowing through the valley but a short distance, sink beneath the surface to feed the artesian belts and the subterranean stream of the Santa Ana. This river is the most valuable stream in Southern California for the purpose of irrigation. Among the features which contribute to its importance are its low banks, its extensive water shed and its many tributaries, both above and below the surface. It furnishes the main supply for several large water systems and companies, and the greater part of the power for the Edison Electric System of Los Angeles, which operated the first long-distance electric power transmission system ever installed, came from this stream.
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION. Irrigation was introduced into Cali- fornia and San Bernardino Valley by the first European settlers, the Spanish priests, who, coming from a country where irrigation was in general use, established the "Asistencia" de San Bernardino, and utilized the waters of Mill Creek by building the zanja which has been in use ever since its completion in 1822. During the '40s the New Mexican settlers who located along the Santa Ana, below the present city of San Bernardino, dug and diverted various ditches to irrigate their vineyards, orchards and bean plots, and some of these, almost primitive in their simplicity, are still in use, others having become parts of the Riverside and Jurupa water systems. While the Mormons on their arrival made no concerted efforts at irrigation, they realized the benefits thereof and by the use of open ditches brought a considerable area of land under irrigation, instances being a 50-acre tract, on Lytle Creek, laid out in one- acre tracts, and a common-property vineyard at Old San Bernardino, which was irrigated from the old zanja, the benefits of which they at once appreciated. Soon after their arrival, in June, 1851, the Mormons
Vol. I-6
81
82
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
dug an open ditch carrying about 40 inches of water from Lytle Creek into the stockade, and in 1853 carried through the work of building the Davis Mill ditch, taken from the junction of City and Warm creeks, which carried some 1,500 inches of water and was used to operate the grist mill. Other early ditches were the Tenney, originally taken from the Santa Ana near the head of the valley in 1855, and used to irrigate two or three sections of grain land near Old San Bernardino; and the Lord and Hale and Perdue ditches, taken from Lytle Creek in 1854 and 1855. These, with others taken out about the same time, furnished the original water rights upon which many of the later rights were based.
When the Mormons departed the new settlers continued to use these ditches, as well as to dig new ones, these including the Meeks and Daley, from Warm Creek, carrying 600 inches, in 1858-9; the Timber, near the head of the Santa Ana on the south side; the Cram-Van Lueven, the Waterman and the Berry Brothers. The original system as to the division of the water, mutually agreed upon, was subject to the direction of water masters, appointed by the Board of Water Commissioners, the latter of
LITTLE BEAR LANE
LITTLE BEAR LAKE POSTOFFICE
whom were elected by the people under a special act of Legislature apply- ing to San Bernardino County alone, approved February 18, 1864.
Later, as was naturally the outcome, the higher valuation of land and water caused the formation of regularly organized and incorporated water companies. "One of the first incorporated water companies," says L. M. Holt, "was formed at Riverside, growing out of the Southern California Colony Association, formed in 1870. It was a land and water company combined. It was a close corporation and was organized to make money for its stockholders by selling water for irrigation purposes after all of its land had been sold. It fixed the price of water at first at a low figure, intending to advance the rates as the settlement grew. In those days there was practically no limit to what a company might charge for water." Other companies came rapidly into being, among these: the Sunnyside Ditch Association, in 1877, out of which grew the Lugonia Water Com- pany, organized in 1883; the Colton Land and Water Company, about 1877 : the Cucamonga Homestead Company, in 1877, whose rights were later a part of the Cucamonga Water Company's supply, that company coming into existence in 1887; the Lytle Creek Water Company, incor- rorated in October, 1881, later forming a part of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company, formed in 1887; the Redlands Water Company,
83
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
formed in October, 1881 ; the San Antonio Water Company, in October, 1882; the Bear Valley Reservoir Company, incorporated in October, 1883; and the North Fork Water Company, incorporated in 1885. This last-named grew out of water rights which had been used since the Mormon period, the water being derived from the North Fork ditch, the Cram-Van Leuven ditch and other claims.
THE BEAR VALLEY FIASCO. Just how inadequate were the laws enacted to deal with the irrigation problems of the day-and this includes the notorious Wright Irrigation District Law, enacted by the Legislature in 1887-is shown in the Bear Valley Reservoir and Bear Valley Irriga- tion Company fiasco. In 1880 the possibilities of Bear Valley as a storage reservoir were brought to public attention, when a topographical survey was made under the direction of the state engineer, and the valley was reported as one of the best sites for a storage reservoir in Southern Cali- fornia. When, in 1883, the founders of the new colony of Redlands were looking about for an increased water supply for their lands, F. E. Brown, in company with Hiram Barton, who was familiar with the ground, made an examination of Bear Valley, and both became satisfied that the only practical solution to the water problem before them was the impounding of the waters which annually ran to waste in these mountains. They were also convinced that a storage reservoir could be constructed and that the channel of the Santa Ana River might be utilized for the flow which could be diverted at any elevation desired, such usage not inter- fering with water rights already in force and covering the flow of the river. A company was formed and incorporated, October 2, 1883, with a capital stock of $360,000, a temporary dam was first placed in the canon, and work on the permanent dam was commenced June 17, 1884, and completed in November of the same year. The original cost of the dam was about $75,000, and the land for the reservoir site was obtained by purchase, 3,800 acres from Los Angeles parties and 700 acres from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Government, the approxi- mate cost being $30,000.
With the growth of Redlands and the planting of more orchards, the demand for water increased, and the directors of the Bear Valley Land and Water Company issued what were known as "Class A" certificates, which entitled the holder to receive a continuous flow of one-seventh of an inch of water to the acre of land to which the said certificates might apply, under certain conditions. Later operations of the company served to involve the concern in a mass of litigation which, up to the year 1904, had not been straightened out. Deciding to increase the capacity of the dam by building it higher and by putting in other subsidiary dams, on December 30, 1890, the Bear Valley Land and Water Company executed a deed of all its property to a new company, the Bear Valley Irrigation Company, which assumed all the obligations of the old organization. Various auxiliary corporations were formed, irrigation districts were formed, bonds were issued, and what were known as "Class B" certificates made their appearance. Development work was pushed vigorously and the Alessandro pipe line was constructed and water turned into it. This was the high tide of the Bear Valley history, but complications arose, and the beginning of the end came when, in December, 1893, the Alessandro Irrigation District began suit in Riverside County against the Bear Valley Company. A receiver was appointed and investigations were begun which led the other creditors to take court action. Eventually the prop- erty was sold at receiver's sale, the price paid being $380,000, but the property was still subject to incumbrances which were then (1894)
84
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
computed to be approximately $1,000,000. Later Arthur Young, the pur- chaser, conveyed the property to the New Bear Valley Irrigation Com- pany, a corporation organized under the laws of Arizona. Further court action followed, and the close of the year 1898 found the case still tied up in legislative red tape from which it seemed that it could not be extri- cated. In a report rendered in October, 1898, the following statement occurs : "It appears that for upwards of four years the (Bear Valley) plant has been involved in a complicated, expensive and tedious litiga- tion in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit, which litigation is still pending. and from all that appears will be likely to remain unconcluded for years to come." Ingersoll, writing in 1904, says: "The present status is about the same as it was in 1898. While some of the suits and contentions have been disposed of, the entire property is covered by liens held by the Savings and Trust Company, of Cleveland. Ohio, to secure the payment of bonds and receivers' certificates, now aggregating something over $1,000,000.1 Various incidental questions are involved in the suit, it being sought for one thing to determine the legal status of the water certificates and the so-called deeded water and foreclose all rights thereunder; the holders, some hundreds in number, being made defendants. At present the newly-formed Bear Valley Mutual Water Company of Redlands, made up of the water users from the Bear Valley system, are negotiating with the Savings and Trust Company for the purchase of the property. Should this be done the legal questions involved would be much simplified and the large area now supplied from the reservoir would be assured of a sufficient and cheap supply of water."
THE ARROWHEAD RESERVOIR AND POWER COMPANY. The Arrowhead Reservoir Company, organized in 1891, was the predecessor of the present Arrowhead Reservoir and Power Company. Its principal stockholders were Cincinnati capitalists, and it was, from its first planning, a stupendous affair. As the first step, a main reservoir was to be con- structed in the Little Bear Valley which would impound the natural drainage of Little Bear Creek, a tributary of Deep Creek. An inlet tunnel was to be made from this reservoir eastward to Deep Creek and then extended to Crab and Holcomb creeks to collect all drainage above the tunnel and carry it into the reservoir. This has been partly con- structed. Diversion dams and regulating reservoirs were to be located at Deep, Crab and Holcomb creeks and the flow of the smaller streams was to enter the tunnel through shafts. All of this work would he in the Deep Creek watershed. Another reservoir was to be constructed in Grass Valley, west of the main reservoir and on a tributary of the West Fork of the Mojave River, and this supplemental basin was to be connected with the main basin by a tunnel. Two other reservoirs were to be located in mountain flats, the sites for which were later abandoned. Water was to be taken from the main reservoir by an outlet tunnel through the San Bernardino Range of Mountains and delivered for the irrigation of lands south of the mountains. The company had no lands for sale and made no contracts for the delivery of water.
A masonry dam, to form the main reservoir, was begun on Little Bear Creek, but by the time the foundation was constructed it was found that suitable rock in sufficient quantity to construct a masonry dam was not to be had near the site, and this caused a suspension of construction which was prolonged for a number of years. Data on the amount of
1 In October, 1892. the company had given a trust deed of its property to the Savings and Trust Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, to secure a loan of $300,000.
85
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
water for storage had been meagre and the supply overestimated. In 1892 a series of precipitation and run-off measurements was commenced throughout the watershed which was continued for thirteen years before the work of construction was resumed. Also, until 1895, the development of power had not been considered in connection with the project. About that time, when it became known that long transmission of electrical power was practicable, it was planned to utilize the energy of the water in its descent on the southern slope of the mountains.
In 1905 the property was transferred to a new corporation, the Arrowhead Reservoir and Power Company, capitalized at $6,500,000, with non-assessable stock, of which $500,000 was 5 per cent preferred and the remainder common stock. Shares representing about $600,000, par value, were issued and placed in the hands of a trustee, no payments having been made on these shares. Some of the other stockholders have taken notes of the company for other obligations, but the company has no indebtedness outside of the stockholders, according to its officials.
Recently a new company has purchased from the Arrowhead Reser- voir Company, all of its interests and is expending a large amount of
FISHING ALONG "101 MILE DRIVE"
money in making Little Bear Valley Reservoir, now known as Arrowhead Lake, one of the finest resorts on the famous 101 mile "Rim of the World" scenic highway.
The type of dam for Arrowhead site was changed to a semi-hydraulic fill with concrete core. The plan of the outlet works was also modified. The Burcham ranch, now called Rancho Las Flores, containing 5,240 acres and including the Forks Reservoir site on the West Fork of the Mojave River near the Forks, was acquired, as were two dam sites farther up stream on the West Fork and known as the West Fork sites Nos. 2 and 3. It was proposed to convey the water in Little Bear Valley Reservoir to the Forks Reservoir, using the intervening drop for power development. The water would be combined in the Forks Reservoir with that received from the natural drainage of the West Fork. This lower reservoir was then to be drained by a tunnel through the mountain range to the south side, where another power drop would be located and below which water would, as under the former plan, be delivered for irri- gation in the San Bernardino Valley.
About 1909 some of the owners of riparian lands on the Mojave River, including the Hesperia Land and Water Company, filed suits to prevent the Arrowhead Reservoir and Power Company from diverting the water from the watershed, but the cases have not been brought to
86
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
trial. In 1912 application was made to the California Railroad Commis- sion for permission to issue $4,000,000 in bonds, when riparian land owners again opposed the plans of the company by protesting against the granting of the application, and the application was denied, without prejudice, for the stated reason that the company's title to water was uncertain until the cases were decided by the courts. The record of the hearings conducted by the commission on the application shows the following :
Valuation put on property at time of reorganization. $1,191,000
Spent by new company since reorganization. 923,204
Principal owed by new company 793,796
126,589
Interest owed by new company . Total $3,034,589
About this time the company, or a trustee of some of the stockholders, began to purchase riparian lands on the Mojave River, mainly for the purpose of quieting opposition from adverse water right claimants, and 1,000 acres just below the Forks, and 3,200 acres, together with most of the older and more useful ditches, between Victorville and Barstow, were acquired. This property included the Westwater lands below Victor- ville. It had been the intention to purchase more riparian lands, but owing to the decision of the State Supreme Court about this time to the effect that flood waters of a stream could not be legally diverted from the natural drainage basin,2 a radical change in plan was adopted which made this no longer necessary. It was now decided to use the water for the development of power and irrigation on the north side instead of the south side of the mountains. In 1914 an offer, which was not accepted, was made to the City of San Diego to sell the water from the system the diversion from the watershed for domestic use not being illegal.
In addition to the agricultural lands below the Forks, the company hold's about 12,000 acres in the mountains, mainly in the Little Bear Valley, Grass Valley and Forks Reservoir basins. The company claims riparian rights pertaining to the extensive lands above and below the Forks, also appropriation rights on all the streams above the Little Bear Valley Reservoir inlet dating from 1890, and on the West Fork and Deep Creek dating from 1905. The company claims that the measurements show that enough water can be stored to enable the delivery of 40 second- feet continuously from the Little Bear Valley Reservoir, or 100 second- feet continuously from this reservoir and the Forks Reservoir combined.
The Little Bear Valley dam is now built to a height of 160 feet above stream bed and is 80 per cent completed. It is to have a maximum height of 200 feet above stream bed and 220 feet above hedrock, a length on top of 830 feet and a top width of 20 feet. The fill will contain 1,562 .- 329 cubic yards of earth and the core will contain 27,999 cubic yards of concrete. The original slopes were 21/2 to 1, inside, and 2 to 1 outside, but an addition is now being made to the lower fill to change the outside slope to 3 to 1. The core wall is 20 feet thick at the base and tapers to 3 feet thick at the top, and that part above a thickness of four feet is reinforced. In the winter of 1909 cracks occurred in the top of the core wall which had then been built up 38 feet above the earth fill. The cracking was believed to be due to the effect of temperature on the exposed portion of the concrete, and these cracks were repaired. The spillway is over the natural rim of the basin and is 5 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and is to be lined with concrete. The Deep Creek inlet tunnel is
2 Miller & Lux vs. Madera Canal and Irrigation Company, 155 Cal. 60.
87
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
under construction, it being driven and partly lined from the reservoir to a point beyond Shake Creek, a length of nearly two miles, at this time. The completed tunnel will be over 14,316 feet long, while the tunnel from Deep Creek to Crab Creek is to have a length of 5,000 feet and the Holcomb C'reck extension is to add 12,100 feet. The Deep Creek reservoir is to have a capacity of 2,000 acre-feet and is to act as a regulator to the inlet tunnel. The tunnel has a capacity of 600 to 1,000 second-feet, depending upon the head above the intake. The Hol- comb Creek dam is to be 70 feet high, giving a capacity of 1,000 acre- feet to the basin above the tunnel.
The tunnel connecting Grass Valley, 4,172 fect in length, is driven and lined, but the Grass Valley dam has not been constructed. As proposed, the dam is to be 90 feet high, which would give a storage capacity of 7,632 acre-feet. Water is now diverted from Grass Valley by ditch to and through the connecting tunnel into the main reservoir.
The outlet tunnel of the main reservoir, 5,102 feet in length, is con- structed and lined, and through it water can now be discharged into Guernsey Creek, a tributary of Deep Creek, above the intake of the Appleton Land, Water & Power Company's canal. The gate tower is a reinforced concrete structure, 185 feet high, located in the reservoir basin at the upper end of the outlet. Beside the gate valves in this tower, additional valves are placed in a shaft 220 feet deep, extending down to the outlet in the rock rim of the reservoir. The maximum head on the outlet will be 185 feet, and the capacity of the completed reservoir below the floor of the spillway will be 60,179 acre-feet, when the area of the water surface will be 883 acres. About 35,000 acre-feet is the amount now stored in the reservoir with the dam partially completed.
The fall from Little Bear Valley reservoir to the Forks is 2,000 feet, a drop sufficient to develop about 7,000 horse-power with 40 second-feet of water. The Forks reservoir site is in a position to receive, naturally, the entire flow of the West Fork, as well as the water from the Little Bear Valley reservoir through the proposed power conduit and the flood water from the lower part of Deep Creek, provided about one mile of inlet ditch or tunnel be constructed from that stream. A dam 150 feet high across the West Fork would give a capacity of 102,000 acre-feet and a reservoir area of 2,000 acres. In addition to the main dam a saddle in the rim of the basin on the north side would have to be raised with an embankment to give this capacity. This valuable property passed into the possession of a syndicate of Los Angeles capitalists, in the fall of 1921, and a very large sum of money is being expended in its further improve- ment. The new owners have changed the name of "Little Bear Lake," to "Arrowhead Lake."
DECISIONS AFFECTING WATER RIGHTS. As far back as the advent of white settlers in the county, disputes began to arise over water rights. These have continued to the present time, and some very important deci- sions have been handed down by the courts in cases originating in San Bernardino localities. In creating the special Board of Water Com- missioners, the members of the legislature thought that they had solved a somewhat troublesome problem, but even this body, empowered to settle conflicting claims and have a general oversight of water questions, the use of ditches, construction, etc., could not prevent lawsuits. The first suit of this nature in the county was that of the North Fork ditch owners versus the Cram-Van Leuven ditches in 1861, which was even- tually settled out of court through an agreement. The appropriation of Mill Creek waters by settlers in the vicinity of Crafton caused a long and
88
SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
bitterly fought battle between the individual holders at Crafton and those at Old San Bernardino. A case that was locally prominent because of the length and comprehensiveness of the testimony, as well as the decisions rendered, was the Cave versus Crafts suit, brought in 1875, which was disposed of in the lower court, where it was found, in 1876, that although Craft had been using water at times when he was not entitled to it, still he had certain rights and that certain other defend- ants had rights by adverse use. This decision settled the fact that waters were not inseparably appurtenant to any land, but that certain persons had definite privileges. Crafts again appears in a case called in 1883-84, Byrne versus Crafts, in which Mill Creek waters are again brought into discussion. At that time it was claimed that the waters had been used on the Rancho San Bernardino since 1820 and were exclusively an appurtenance to the lands of said grant. In deciding this case, however, it was found that none of the waters at the time of the grant were ever or at all incident or appurtenant to the ranch lands, or to any portion of them, except to that portion known as Cottonwood Row. The former decision was sustained and it was furthermore found that the owner of a water-right in the ditch could do what he chose with the water during the hours the flow was allotted to him, provided he did not deprive the holders of other hour-rights of the full flow of the stream during the period of their turn; and, moreover, that the waste waters of the ditch were not and could not be any specified quantity, but only such waters as irrigators from time to time did not use.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.