— 142 — 



At the following regular session of the Legislature, however, the 

 riparian section of the Civil Code was repealed and a law providing for 

 the formation of irrigation districts, introduced and fathered by Hon. 

 C. C. Wright — and ever since known as the Wright irrigation district 

 law — was enacted. 



This brings us down to a consideration of the defects of that law and 

 the remedies thereof. The law was made as perfect at first as the cir- 

 cumstances would admit. It was a new departure in the way of legis- 

 lation, and hence no one knew just what was wanted, nor just how the 

 system as presented would work. Mr. Wright did a good work in mak- 

 ing the law as perfect as it is. There were constitutional obstacles in 

 the way of a perfect system, even if the Legislature had felt disposed 

 to grant whatever might have been asked by the friends of the district 

 system. As it was, the law was made as perfect as it was possible 

 to make it. For eight years the law has been on trial. Over forty 

 districts have been organized. At every session of the Legislature 

 amendments have been asked for, and made. The Legislature has 

 never in a single instance passed an amendment not asked for by the 

 friends of the system, and it has refused every time to pass any bill 

 asked for by the enemies of the system. 



Out of the forty or more irrigation districts organized, but few have 

 completed their systems and brought their lands under successful irri- 

 gation. Several districts have been disorganized under the law passed 

 by the legislative session of 1893. Many districts have sold a portion 

 of their bonds, but cannot complete the unfinished systems because of 

 inability to sell more bonds. Some districts were organized purely for 

 speculative purposes, with a view to selling water rights at exorbitant 

 figures, taking bonds in payment for the same. Such districts should 

 never have been organized. 



For tw T o years past there has been very little progress made in the 

 irrigation district work of the State. No new districts have been organ- 

 ized; several old ones have been disorganized, and more should have 

 been, for they are practically and most effectually dead. One or two 

 districts have sold bonds, and commenced active construction work, but, 

 as a rule, the districts are at a standstill, unable to either go ahead or 

 back out of a bad bargain. 



There is evidently some good cause for this condition of affairs. 

 What is it? 



Evidently the law is not entirely suited to fit the conditions. It is 

 true that an important case is pending in the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, touching the constitutionality of the district law. That 

 case was argued on the 15th and 16th of October, but up to the present 

 time no decision has been rendered. 



There are radical defects in the law, and the district system will never 

 meet the expectations of its friends until those defects are remedied by 

 (1) State supervision; (2) State guarantee. 



The Legislature at its forthcoming session should submit an amend- 

 ment to the State Constitution providing that the State may issue and 

 sell its bonds in order to create as may be needed an irrigation fund. As 

 soon as that amendment becomes a part of the Constitution there should 

 be created a State Board of Irrigation, composed of the Governor, Attor- 

 ney-General, Secretary of State, Surveyor-General, and a State Engineer. 

 The plans for forming all irrigation districts should be submitted to this 



