228 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



nishedby the district, he does not reap this benefit ex- 

 cept in the future increase in the value of his land by 

 reason of the improvements made around him, and the 

 fact that he can obtain water whenever he decides to 

 improve his land. This, not being a fixed annual in- 

 come in money, the landowner is apt to overlook it and 

 claim that he is paying taxes for nothing and without 

 any benefit accruing to him. He never stops to reason 

 that it is his own fault that he does not have a fixed 

 income in dollars and cents from his property. 



COMPARED WITH PRIVATE COMPANIES. 



To take a practical illustration, the writer was in con- 

 versation not long since with a landowner who had 

 not improved his land in an irrigation district near the 

 city of San Bernardino but was compelled to pay taxes 

 to the amount of about $1 per acre annually to the 

 district for interest on bonds and incidental expenses 

 of the district. This district is far enough advanced 

 to be able to deliver water to all of its landowners if 

 they want to use it, but this gentleman failed to con- 

 sider this and claimed that the tax was without any 

 consideration, and excessive even if he used the water. 

 Then his attention was called to the fact that the 

 amount was much less than was paid on stock annu- 

 ally in private water companies in the vicinity, and 

 that the stock had to be purchased, and if money was 

 borrowed on the land to buy the stock, interest had to 

 be paid on the amount borrowed in addition to the 

 assessments on the stock, which were simply for run- 

 ning expenses. The writer, as an illustration to him, 

 showed him how he had paid to a company in the 

 vicinity $90 per acre for water-stock for his land, and 

 that ever since he had paid annual assessments to 

 the amount of $3 per acre for the maintenance of the 

 system and distribution of the water. In the district 

 in question the bonded indebtedness for water was 

 $18 per acre, and only two-thirds of this was outstand- 

 ing, and the annual tax of $1 per acre was for interest 

 on the outstanding bonds and all other expenses con- 

 nected with operating the system of the district. The 

 account of cost annually for water in this irrigation 

 district and under the private system referred to would 

 stand as follows: 



In the irrigation district: 



Interest on $12 per acre outstanding bonds at 6 per 



cent $ .72 



Cost of maintenance and distribution of water per 



acre .28 



Total 



$1.00 



Under the private system: 



Interest on $90 per acre invested in water-stock at 6 



percent $6.^ 



Assessment as above for other expenses 3 . ( 



Total 



$9.40 



This shows $8.40 per acre annually in favor of the 

 district system in this instance, and the comparison is 

 an absolutely fair one, as both water-rights are equally 

 good, and the lands situated in the same neighborhood 

 not more than seven miles apart. The only difference 

 is that the tax for the district is levied on the land, and 

 for the private water company on the water-stock. In 

 either case it must be paid by the owner of the stock 

 or the district water-right, whether the water is used 

 or not. In addition, the private water-right herein 

 quoted is one of the cheapest in the vicinity, and even 

 if it is claimed that the district is an exceptionally 

 good one the comparison is fair. 



But it is urged by the opponents of the district sys- 

 tem that often a tax must be paid while no water is 



as yet obtainable. This is true, but it is usually owing- 

 to the fact that every movement of the district has 

 been fought and contested by the very persons making 

 this objection, so that it is impossible to complete the 

 works and fulfill the purposes for which the district 

 has been organized. The taxes have been levied for 

 legal expenses incurred in defending the organiza- 

 tion of the district, which has never yet had an op- 

 portunity to do any development work. The failure 

 to sell the district bonds has principally been due to 

 the opposition made to districts by the class of land- 

 owners therein already referred to. There are, of 

 course, other reasons why irrigation district bonds 

 have not sold more readily, some of which are the 

 following: Doubt as to the constitutionality of the 

 law; want of faith in the managements; distrust of 

 irrigation securities in general, and the hard times 

 throughout the country and civilized world since the 

 enactment of the law. 



CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THE LAW. 



As to the first of these, the Supreme Court of the 

 State of California has decided the law constitutional 

 in the following cases: Central Irrigation District 

 vs. R. DeLappe et al., Crall vs. Board of Directors of 

 the Poso Irrigation District, and Board of Directors of 

 the Modesto Irrigation District vs. Tregea, etc. 



In support of the constitutionality of irrigation dis- 

 tricts there was in addition the opinion of the United 

 States Supreme Court in the case of Hagar vs. Rec- 

 lamation District No. 108, and a number of decisions 

 of the United States Supreme Court on statutes pro- 

 viding for the organization of various other kinds of 

 districts in other States for making local public im- 

 provements. All these things had removed almost all 

 doubt from the minds of attorneys and investors as to 

 the constitutionality of the act, and it was universally 

 conceded that there was but little doubt of the case of 

 the Board of Directors of the Modesto Irrigation Dis- 

 trict vs. Tregea, before the United States Supreme 

 Court on appeal, being decided in favor of the districts,. 

 and the constitutionality of the law sustained therein. 



THE DECISION OF JUDGE ROSS. 



The most eminent legal authorities did not hesitate 

 to advise investments in district bonds, and very re- 

 cently nearly a million dollars of bonds of the Poso 

 and Turlock districts were sold to Chicago and New 

 York capitalists on the opinion of Judge Dillon of 

 New York, than whom there is no better authority on 

 such questions. Hardly had this sale been consum- 

 mated before a decision was rendered by Judge Rosa 

 in the United States District Court for the Southern 

 District of California sustaining a demurrer in the 

 case of Maria King Bradley et al., vs. The Fallbrook 

 Irrigation District on the ground that the law provid- 

 ing for the organization of irrigation districts is con- 

 trary to the constitution of the United States. The 

 fact that this was the first decision of a Federal court 

 in relation to the act caused the greatest excitement 

 and a practical suspension of all developments in irriga- 

 tion districts and sale of bonds thereof. While the 

 State courts could not recognize this decision, and 

 irrigation districts are as constitutional as ever until 

 the Supreme Court of the United States decides other- 

 wise, still the effect of the Ross decision was to stop 

 all progress in the various districts and to cause re- 

 joicing among the enemies of the district system. 



It has further resulted in a call being issued among 

 residents of irrigation districts calling upon the people 

 to subscribe towards a fund for the purpose of having 

 this decision sustained by the United States Supreme 

 Court. This latter movement was started by the old 



