46 BULLETIN 1177, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
The second period of activity in California began about 1909, in 
which year two important districts were formed to extend an irrigated 
area contiguous to the successful Modesto and Turlock irrigation dis- 
tricts, and since 1913 has continued unabated. Due to the bitter 
lessons learned in the early years, the weak features of the old districts 
have been generally absent from those more recently formed. The 
State has jealously guarded its good name and the State engineer 
has refused to sanction a number of enterprises which appeared to 
him undesirable. But interest in irrigation development by districts 
has been so widespread throughout the State during the past four or 
five years that the disappointed petitioners in some cases have suc- 
ceeded in overriding the State engineer's disapproval and in having 
their districts organized. Especially during the period immediately 
following the war. irrigation districts were being organized on an ex- 
tensive scale and were finding the disposal of their bonds a compara- 
tively easy matter. It became possible even to sell some bonds 
which had been refused certification by the State. But following 
the change in the general economic situation during the early fall of 
1920 there became evident a more conservative attitude on the part 
of the bond-investing public and consequently greater discrimination 
in the choice of irrigation securities. As a general rule now the 
market will not absorb uncertified issues. 
The majority of districts formed during the first period were located 
south of the Tehachapi, but by far the greatest activity during the 
present period has been confined to Sacramento and San Joaquin 
Valleys. A few recently organized districts have been located in 
southern California and a few in the northeastern section of the State. 
In spite, therefore, of mistakes made and damage done in the 
early years, much has been accomplished under the irrigation dis- 
trict law in California, notably in the reorganization and extension of 
existing systems and to a lesser degree hi the development of new 
enterprises. The early antagonistic influences are not now active. 
The adaptability of the district law to given conditions and the 
advantages and limitations of such type of organization are much 
better known than they were 35 years ago. Certain early mis- 
takes — particularly the construction of works without adequate 
engineering investigation or economic justification, and the promotion 
of districts in wholly undeveloped sections where established values 
furnish inadequate security for bond issues — are much more care- 
fully guarded against than formerly. While the financial condition 
of a few of the newer enterprises was unsatisfactory in 1921 as a 
result of the drop in prices of farm products the year before, such 
condition was exceptional. On the other hand, many successful 
California districts bear testimony to the adapt abihty of the irriga- 
tion district, properly safeguarded/for conservative irrigation develop- 
ment. 
Colorado. — The first district act was approved April 12, 1901. The 
latest complete enactment came in 1921 as a result of the efforts of 
the irrigation district finance commission, which had been created in 
1919 to examine into the causes of success or failure of Colorado dis- 
tricts with a view to recommending means for preventing further 
failures. 
Early development in Colorado was generally conservative and 
dealt largely with the extension and improvement of existing systems. 
