48 BULLETIN" 1177, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
During the first decade of the present century, which was a period 
of great activity along all lines of irrigation development in the West, 
comparatively few irrigation districts were organized in Idaho and 
they were essentially conservative enterprises. At the same time 
Carey Act projects were being initiated on a large scale and the 
widespread interest they created, coupled with the fact that conditions 
were not quite ripe for financing irrigation districts, caused the idea 
of new development by means of districts to be lost sight of tem- 
porarily. The type of early district development is shown by the 
fact that 11 of the first 13 irrigation districts were designed to take 
over the ownership and operation of existing irrigation works, and 
that these 11 districts are to-day and always have been among the 
soundest financially in the entire West. 
About the year 1909, which marked the height of similar activity 
in Colorado, irrigation districts in Idaho began to share the attention 
of promoters with the result that 3 of the 4 districts formed in that 
year and 11 of the 20 districts organized from 1909 to 1913, inclusive, 
were connected with the development of entirely new projects. 
Since 1913, however, there has been comparatively little activity of 
this type in Idaho, for most of the districts formed since that time 
have had in view either the taking over and operation of existing 
projects or the construction of storage reservoirs to supplement 
water supplies for at least partially developed areas. 
The great majority of districts lie in the Snake Kiver Valley from 
St. Anthony, in Fremont County, to Weiser, in Washington County. 
A few are found in the valleys tributary to Snake River, and still 
others in the extreme southeastern and northwestern parts of the 
State. 
The number of irrigation districts in Idaho that have not been 
successful is remarkably small. Four-fifths of the districts actually 
operating were formed to take over irrigation systems in already 
developed communities, and these districts are the ones that have 
had the least trouble. Cases of failure to meet obligations in this 
group are very few. On the other hand, the districts formed to 
construct new systems or to purchase newly constructed irrigation 
works in relatively unsettled communities have often been hard 
pressed to meet their obligations and in some instances have been 
unable to do so. Hence the general use of the irrigation district to 
purchase and operate going concerns, or to provide funds for 
extensions and improvements, or to furnish supplemental water 
supplies for late irrigation, in communities where the security behind 
the bond issue has been already established and where settlers have 
been sufficiently numerous to carry the burden of taxation, has 
undoubtedly been one of the greatest factors making for success. 
Then the provision for even a limited measure of State supervision 
over the organization and plans of construction has certainly acted 
as a check upon ill-advised schemes. Prudent and economical 
management and a capacity for getting together have also saved the 
day in more than one difficult undertaking. 
Kansas. — Although Kansas has had an irrigation district law on its 
statute books since March 10, 1891, no district, so far as could be 
ascertained, has ever been formed in the State. ALL of the larger 
irrigation projects had been constructed and put into operation 
before the law was enacted and development since that time has 
