IRRIGATION DISTRICT OPERATION AND FINANCE. 43 
embracing millions of acres of arid lands, the irrigation and bringing 
into possible cultivation of such areas is a public purpose and a 
matter of public interest, not confined to the landowners or to any 
one section of the State, and that an act of the legislature providing 
for irrigation may well be regarded as an act devoting the water to 
a public use. The court held, furthermore, that the detailed procedure 
provided for in the act furnished due process of law. 
In the meantime, and while the ultimate fate of the district law 
was still a matter of conjecture. Washington, Kansas, Nevada. Oregon, 
Idaho, and Nebraska, in the order named, had enacted similar statutes, 
following for the most part the phraseology of the Wright Act, but 
altered to suit local conditions. There was no immediate reaction 
to the Supreme Court decision in the enactment of additional laws 
or the formation of new districts, but with the constitutionality of 
the law thus established the way was paved for the ever-increasing 
development which began a few years later. All of the Western 
States, including the tier of States from North Dakota to Texas, 
have now passed irrigation district laws embodying the principles 
first expressed in the Wright Act. 
With the changes that have taken place since the enactment of the 
early district laws and the experience the States have had with the 
actual operation of districts, it has been inevitable that frequent and 
radical alterations and additions should be made to the original laws. 
Even at the present time, although the fundamental principles of the 
irrigation district type of organization may be considered as well 
settled, there are many details of formation and operation that are 
still undergoing change. 
EARLY DISTRICTS UNDER THE WRIGHT ACT. 
Three States soon followed California in passing irrigation district 
statutes, but actual operations prior to 1895 were confined to 
California and Washington. Little was accomplished at this time in 
Washington, for only two of the seven districts formed issued bonds 
and none did much in the way of construction. In California, how- 
ever, extensive operations were carried on. the results of which may 
be summarized in the statement that 49 districts were organized, of 
which 26 went beyond the point of organization and seriously 
attempted to function, and that only 8 of these have survived to the 
present day. 6 of the 8 having been compelled to pass through 
financial reorganizations before their survival became assured. 
Furthermore, of the 17,917,850 of bonds issued by the early districts 
only 82.000 was paid in full, 82,601. 000 having been refunded at 
varying discounts, $2,589,800 compromised at various figures and 
canceled. 82.126.750 held illegal, and -8598,300 with no settlement 
yet effected. 
With an initial handicap of this magnitude to be overcome, the 
present extent and increasing favor in which irrigation districts are 
held are the best testimonials that could be offered to the inherent 
soundness of the irrigation district, properly safeguarded, for certain 
types of irrigation development. After all, this early record is no 
worse than those of many other pioneer undertakings, and when one 
reads of the deliberate repudiation of obligations by certain States 
and municipalities when hard pressed financially, and of the extensive 
losses in railroad and other corporate investments in the early years 
