THE IRRIGATION AGE 



VOL. vin. 



CHICAGO, DECEMBER, 1895- 



NO. 8. 



THE WRIGHT LAW IN CALIFORNIA. 



BY F. C. FlNKLE, MEM. AM. Soc. IRR. ENGINEERS. 



THE Wright Irrigation District law has been in op- 

 eration in the State of California since 1887, or 

 for eight years. During that time there has been 

 much progress under the act, and irrigation districts 

 have constructed works and acquired water-rights for 

 irrigation purposes to the approximate value of $ 20,- 

 000,000. Of course the success of irrigation districts 

 has been variable; in some districts, where the man- 

 agement has been conservative and honest, the result 

 has been that the property acquired is of much more 

 value than the expenditure, and is of a character 

 which insures its constant rise in value hereafter. 



On the other hand there are a few instances of mis- 

 management, which has caused some loss, and the 

 property of the districts so managed may not at the 

 present time be fully worth the amount expended 

 thereon. These instances, however, have not been due 

 to defects in the law, but to other causes which no law 

 could, forestall. The only causes of partial failure or 

 loss to districts have been the two following: 



(1) The opposition of large landowners within the 

 districts, who hold their lands for speculative purposes 

 and do not possess the means or inclination to 

 improve the same. 



(2) The failure to sell the securities of the district 

 for cash, so that it has been necessary to trade them off 

 at a heavy discount. 



The first of these causes has possibly been of more 

 detriment to irrigation districts than any other, and 

 has shown that it is unwise to include within the dis- 

 tricts large holdings of a single individual. It would 

 be impossible to prevent such inclusion by legislative 

 enactment, however, as a law making distinctions of 

 this kind would be class legislation and therefore un- 

 constitutional. The only way in which the lands of 

 large landowners objecting to being included in irriga- 

 tion districts can be left out is not to propose them in 

 the petition for the organization of the district. It 

 therefore becomes a matter of policy with those pro- 

 posing the organization of a district whether any one 

 objecting shall be included or left out. For the good 

 of the particular district being organized it is un- 

 doubtedly advisable to exclude all opposing parties, 

 but for the public good they should be included, as 

 it is without question the intent of the law to subserve 

 the public good by reclaiming all the desert land in 

 the State, in the same manner as the swamp lands were 

 reclaimed under the reclamation act. 



FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. 



. The law itself can not be said to be unjust to any 

 one, as there is no advantage given to one person over 

 another by the law; it compels all alike to reclaim their 

 lands from a desert state and make them productive. 

 It is in this respect the same as other laws for making 

 improvements in cities, towns, counties, reclamation 

 districts, school districts, etc. In all such organiza- 

 tions it is a sad fact that there are people who oppose 

 improvements, but when the public good demands 

 their co-operation with the majority in making im- 

 provements, by which they will be benefited with the 

 majority, the legislative power of the State is justly 

 exercised in compelling them to do their share. The 

 sole duty of people in irrigation districts is to see that 

 the will of the majority is faithfully carried out, and 

 that the funds from the sale of bonds or from tax lev- 

 ies are expended as provided by law, and the benefits 

 to residents proportional to their assessments. 



It is often argued by the enemies of districts that 

 the benefits are not adequate to the expenditures in- 

 curred and that the payment of the taxes imposed is a 

 burden too heavy to be borne by the property owners. 

 When a statement like this is made the fact is over- 

 looked that the value of lands in the districts is en- 

 hanced vastly more than the bonded indebtedness. 

 To refute such a statement it is simply necessary ^ to 

 take the value of the land before it is supplied with 

 water and while in its desert state and compare it with 

 the values after it is supplied with water. In South- 

 ern California, for instance, what is unirrigated land 

 worth? The best of it rarely is made to yield an in- 

 come over and above State and County taxes of 25 cents 

 per acre. And taking one year with another the net 

 income will not average half of this. On the other 

 hand, irrigated land has been known to yield as high 

 as $1,300 per acre profit in a single year. But we do 

 not claim that this is a fair average. It is not too 

 much to say, however, that $100 per acre is a fair 

 average for the income from well cultivated irrigated 

 land in Southern California, after all expenses of cul- 

 tivating and marketing crops are paid. This shows 

 conclusively that irrigation benefits land greatly more 

 than the amount of bonded debt under the Wright 

 law in the most heavily bonded districts in Southern 

 California. 



Of course, if a person fails to improve and cultivate 

 his land and avail himself of the water supply fur- 



