UNPROFITABLE IRRIGATION 

 WORKS. 



NO. IV. 

 BY T. S. VAN DYKE 



In every case in which I have been interested in building irriga- 

 tion works the question has been raised by capital, "Can the super- 

 visors or any other body interfere with the annual rates or rentals?" 

 It has been necessary in every case to satisfy capital that these could 

 be fixed beyond the power of any body to disturb. And this is prob- 

 ably so in the great majority of cases, as sooner or later capital under- 

 stands its business. Pew people of any sense would build works for 

 irrigation if the rates can be thus changed by the supervisors. It is 

 entirely different from the fixing of city rates, where there is but 

 trifling danger of their being fixed too low and where there are no 

 such contingencies as there are in irrigation works. 



In most all cases it has been easy to satisfy capital upon this 

 point, and where you can make a sale of water at all it is easy to have 

 the rate fixed perpetually by contract. The man who is wise enough 

 to aid the building of works by buying water is also wise enough to 

 see that it is as much for his interest as it is for that of the company 

 to have the rates fixed forever. If they are too high they are a serious 

 bar upon the sale of the land in case he wants to sell, and if too low 

 he knows that means running down of the works, bad service and 

 consequent depreciation of his land values, to say nothing of the an- 

 noyance and loss if he works the land himself. He knows, too, that 

 supervisors can be influenced by companies as well as by land owners, 

 and that those who howl most lustily about the interests of the dear 

 people are often the first to forget them when they gain a position 

 where they could benefit them. 



Within the last year an eminent federal judge in California, whose 

 opinions command profound respect, decided that a contract for fur- 

 nishing water for irrigation out of appropriated water at a certain 

 rate per annum was illegal, because the sale of appropriated water 

 was a public use and as such subject to the annual rates as fixed by 

 the supervisors of each county. I understand that the Supreme Court 

 of Idaho has lately ruled the same way, but have not had time to in- 

 vestigate it. In studying up this matter some thirteen years ago in a 

 case where I was personally interested, I found many authorities sus- 

 taining this view. I also found many to the effect that one of sound 

 mind and of legal age could contract himself out of the operation of 

 laws made for his protection. But there were so many the other way 

 that I then concluded a mere naked contract for the delivery of water 



