28 BULLETIN 1177, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Colorado investigations and recommendations are provided for by- 
State officials prior to district formation, but are not conclusive upon 
the district electors, the purpose being simply to make known the 
conclusions reached. 
In actual practice the State engineer or other corresponding official 
receives a copy of the petition from the county body or from the 
petitioners, checks the preliminary plans, and as a rule either visits 
the proposed district in person or sends a deputy to make such actual 
field studies as time and available funds may permit. Comparatively 
few proposed districts have been completely disapproved by the 
State. However, it is not unusual for the State engineer to call 
attention to the lack of certain information or to require additional 
data or the elimination of certain tracts of land before granting 
approval. 
Plans and estimates. — Idaho, Nebraska, California, Oklahoma, 
South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, and Colorado have all pro- 
vided that the plans and estimates of the district directors formulated 
before issuing bonds shall be reviewed by State officials, but have 
not made the resulting State recommendations binding upon the 
districts. However, the California and Arizona statutes provide that 
districts issuing bonds to carry out any plans approved by the State 
may make no material change in such plans without the State's 
consent. In Oregon both plans and completed work must be approved 
by the State engineer. In New Mexico, where the report on water 
supply must be approved by the State engineer, with an appeal from 
his decision to the courts, no bonds may be issued until the report 
shall have been approved by the State engineer or the courts. The 
disposal of bonds is subject to partial control by the State in California, 
Oregon, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, and to full control in Montana 
in case of those districts operating under State supervision. 
State supervision over plans and estimates upon which bond issues 
are to be based necessarily goes farther than over the question of 
formation of the district, for it involves definite costs of construction, 
which are sometimes dealt with only in a general way when organ- 
ization is being considered, and is deeply concerned with security for 
the bonds. It sometimes occurs that the bond issue proposed, and 
which the State is to inquire into, is inadequate to complete the con- 
struction called for, in which case it is the function of the State to 
revise the estimates and recommend a greater bond issue. Likewise 
the maturities proposed may not be best suited to the particular type 
of district. That is, a comparatively undeveloped district may be 
proposing to issue short-term bonds which it would have little like- 
lihood of being able to retire when due; or, on the other hand, a well- 
settled district, fully able to discharge capital indebtedness at an 
early date, might plan to throw a heavier burden upon posterity 
than justified. Proper maturities are advised in such cases. 
Security for the bonds involves many factors, important among 
which are the value of the land, adaptability of certain crops, poten- 
tial earning power, relation to markets, sufficiency of the water supply, 
feasibility of the plans, limitation of indebtedness, degree of settle- 
ment of the land, and character of the settlers. All these influences 
must be considered in determining the proper amount of bonded 
indebtedness to be created against a district to insure prompt pay- 
ment of the interest and principal. While the district electors and 
