12 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



added to later on. Don't attempt too much. Such 

 and such an interest will oppose this feature, if add- 

 ed ; such and such an interest will oppose that idea, 

 if advanced. \V r e must accomplish something at this 

 session, right or wrong. Such was the spirit in which 

 the bill became a law. 



THE SO-CALLED WRIGHT DISTRICT LAW. 



Except as to details and as to a point presently 

 mentioned, this Irrigation District law as originally 

 passed was simply an adaptation and in many parts 

 a copy of the first two sections of the general district 

 act of 1872. and the special district act of 1876. There 

 was nothing new in it, except byway of amplification 

 of detail intended to render the legal proceedings, to 

 be had under it, more plain, and to do away with pos- 

 sible conflict with general State laws relating to elec- 

 tion and assessment and collection of taxes. 



Districts were to be formed on petition of land own- 

 ers and by the action of supervisors, as provided by 

 the act of 1872. In all else of fundamental impor- 

 tance it followed the act of 1876, except that it did 

 not make the State treasury the depository of 

 district funds, and did not make the interest 

 and principal of bonds payable from that cen- 

 tral office. This act has been amended at ev- 

 ery session of the legislature since its passage, but 

 only as to details. The principles and main features 

 remain the same. By it, on petition of fifty or more 

 owners of land in a proposed district, the board of 

 supervisors in the county where situated takes action 

 to form the district. The district is governed by a 

 board of commissioners, elected by manhood suffrage, 

 just as are county officers except that the machinery 

 of election is in the hands of the district officers. 

 The question of bond issue to raise a construction 

 fund is voted upon in like manner -all qualified 

 electors of the district, voting. The fund raised from 

 sale of bonds goes into the district treasury, in charge 

 of the district treasurer an elective officer. It is 

 disbursed thence, on warrants drawn by the direct- 

 ors. All property, personal and real, in the district 

 is assessed by a district assessor; on it taxes are lev- 

 ied by the directors, to raise money for payment of 

 principal and interest of bonds. These are collected 

 by a district tax collector. After payment the returns 

 are transferred into the district treasury by the tax 

 collector, and are thence paid out on orders of the 

 directors, for the purposes specified. 



The operation of this law has resulted in great dis- 

 appointment in California. It has not been the suc- 

 cess predicted for it. It has produced many instances 

 of flat failure. Attacked and resisted in operation 

 by the larger land holders within the districts 

 formed, it was thrown into court, and although its 

 constitutionality has been four or five times upheld 



by the State supreme court, it is still the subject of 

 contest on the same point before the National su- 

 preme court. Some facts and details in the history of 

 its operation will be drawn upon for illustration in my 

 next article. For the present let us look broadly at 

 the general result and the reasons therefor. 



AN UNFORTUNATE DISTRICT EXPERIENCE. 



The purpose of the California Irrigation District 

 law was certainly a good one the proper one to be 

 held in view and worked for at the time of its pass- 

 age, as it had been for ten years preceding. ^\s I 

 have in this paper shown, the association principle is 

 essentially a corner stone of every good irrigation 

 system. We should have had a practical and operative 

 irrigation district law in California ten years before 

 the so-called Wright law was passed, and would have 

 had, at least six of those years sooner, but for the 

 contention whose history I have endeavored to out- 

 line. Many of the greater irrigation developments 

 in this State should have been brought about by the 

 agency or with the cooperation of associations of the 

 farmers whose lands they were intended to serve. 

 The irrigation district is a good and desirable thing 

 when so organized and vouched for by the higher 

 political authority the State as to promptly com- 

 mand public respect. It is a questionable feature in 

 any political social system when districts may be so 

 organized as to become a means of fraud on the 

 public and injustice to its own citizens and land 

 owners. 



The Irrigation District law in California was a step 

 in the right direction. That it was exactly the right 

 step, is open to question later to be considered in 

 these articles. But the fatal mistake in taking it 

 was that the step was unguarded an incomplete 

 move a half-way measure, only. And it is this fact, 

 more than any other, more than any defect in the law 

 itself, which has been the cause of its failure. 



In attempting to introduce this civil law institution 

 of district association into our common law irriga- 

 tion system, the fatal mistake was made of not estab- 

 lishing also its inseparable companion institution, 

 state supervision. While the so-called Wright Irri- 

 gation District law of California has produced some 

 apparent successes, looked at broadly, its operation 

 has been little removed from disastrous failure; and, 

 for the reason given. This truth in no way bears 

 upon the value or validity of bonds issued under it. 

 The failure has been largely proportional to the 

 agony and disaster left in the train of conflict which 

 has been necessary to uphold the law and its bond 

 issues. These contentions would not have occurred 

 had the law been properly guarded. This point will 

 be the principal topic of my next article. 



