THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



voir Construction, now before Congress, are of special interest. On page 

 54 of this Report he says: 



"The [irrigation district] law is a priori, an admirable invention to secure a public 

 administration of irrigation works, and is one from which great results would naturally 

 l)e expected. But the history of the measure has thus far been distinctly the reverse. 

 Districts were injudiciously and even fraudulently created. Works were entered upon 

 without proper professional information and were frequently found inadequate to the 

 uses required of them. In many cases visionary and worthless projects were put 

 through at the instigation of contractors and promoters, who expected to profit thereby. 

 Some districts were formed where the judgment of a majority of the property owners 

 was against it, and in many other respects the operation of the law was almost a dis- 

 grace to the state. The irrigation bonds of course quickly responded to the influence 

 of the system. They depreciated in value, so that disposition of them was impossible 

 on any reasonable terms. Stagnation of work ensued, and many districts were left 

 with a heavy bonded indebtedness a first lien upon the lands, and no irrigation works 

 to show for it 



The editorial comments of leading California journals reflects the 

 general sentiment throughout the state. The San Francisco Chronicle 

 has suggested the holding of a State Irrigation Convention to consider 

 remedial measures, and in a recent editorial said: "The matter is one of 

 great importance and should not be neglected. If the present condition 

 of affairs is not bettered, the state will suffer injury in more ways than 

 one. An irrigation system which does not work well is worse than no 

 system at all, for it has the disadvantages of imposing heavy burdens 

 without securing any decided benefits for those who bear them." 



The Los Angeles Times, the leading journal of Southern California, 

 said not long ago. "It is high time that some system of state or federal 

 irrigation should be adopted in place of the Wright Law, which has 

 proved a dismal failure. " And again, "After five years of a period of 

 litigation, a vast amount of bonds have been wiped out of existence, and 

 others are taking the same course, evidently toward the same end. The 

 whole trend of events decrees that the district organization is a thing of 

 the past." 



The Escondido Times says: "The purpose and intention of the 

 Wright Act seemed at first to be good, but in its operation the law has 

 proved itself the most iniquitous act that ever disgraced the statute books 

 of any state in the Union." 



And quoting from the Pasadena papers, the News says, 'One of the 

 best laws, theoretically, but worst in practical operation, ever enacted in 

 California is the Wright Irrigation Act;" and the Star says, "The Wright 

 Liw was probably honestly intended for good, but its effect is actually 

 the reverse. It is doing more than any other cause to retard the pro- 

 gress of the Ferris Valley and many other valuable sections of the state." 



There can be no need of further evidence to show that the district 

 system is a failure. The next question which arises is: Why has it been 

 a failure? The reasons are numerous. They are of two classes: First, 

 defects in the law which could be obviated under the district system; 



