IRRIGATION DISTRICT OPERATION AND FINANCE. 11 
THE ELECTORATE. 
The qualifications required of voters at irrigation district elections 
vary widely in the several States. The California rule has always 
been that such qualifications shall be those prescribed by the general 
election laws of the State. Early experience in California indicated, 
however, that great harm might be done through the voting of bonds 
by persons who might be called upon to shoulder none of the burden 
of paying off the indebtedness — in other words, by electors who 
owned no land — with the result that in the revision of the Wright 
Act in 1897 provision was made for presentation of a petition signed 
by a majority of the landowners, representing a majority in value 
of the lands, before the directors could call a bond election. The 
petition is no longer required in California, although a majority 
instead of a two-thirds vote is sufficient to authorize bonds if such 
petition has been presented, and the directors must call an election 
if petitioned. Furthermore, it is now optional that the petition be 
signed by 500 persons, either electors or title holders, representing at 
least 20 per cent of the value of the lands; for in very large and 
populous districts it was found that the majority provision involved 
so much time and expense that the business of the district was 
seriously hampered, and that in any event the very nature of such 
districts required less stringent regulation of bond issues. The 
Kansas law requires a petition by three-fifths of the resident land- 
owners before a bond election may be called. The present Idaho 
law imposes the qualifications of the general election laws and resi- 
dence in the district upon district electors, with an additional land- 
holding qualification when voting on the question of issuing bonds 
or otherwise incurring indebtedness. 
The other 14 irrigation district States impose property qualifications 
in one form or another upon all district electors. These various 
requirements, in addition to ownership or possession of land or of 
some stated acreage of land within the district, in most cases include 
residence m the district or at least in the State, and in several in- 
stances also include general election qualifications or citizenship. Cor- 
porations, executors, administrators, and guardians are sometimes 
allowed to vote. Four States impose no residence qualification at 
all. Voting according to acreage is allowed in Colorado, Montana, 
and Wyoming, and according to acre-feet of water allotted to the 
land of the elector in Utah. Oregon formerly permitted a vote for 
each acre of land, but in 1917 limited each person to one vote. 
Colorado's experience was just the reverse, the new law of 1921 author- 
izing voting according to acreage. For two years Nevada had in 
effect a system of voting according to dollars of assessment of 
benefit, but changed to one vote per elector in 1919. 
Almost all of the States, therefore, limit the right to create indebt- 
edness to those persons whose lands are to become responsible for it, 
but only a few States recognize the vital interest of landowners living 
out of the State. Some difference of opinion exists as to the wisdom 
of allowing voting according to acreage owned. On the one side it 
is argued that an irrigation district is a business corporation rather 
than a governing municipality and that its affairs should accordingly 
be conducted along parallel lines, recognizing the right of the majority 
in interest to control. On the other hand, proponents of the plan 
of limiting individuals to one vote contend that the small landowners 
