The herald., 1896-11-22
!: TAXES UNDER The WRIGHT ACT :
b
BY JOHN SHIRLEY WARD

Now that the supreme court Of the
United States has decided that the
Wright irrigation act is constitutional,
and hence is the law of California, ana
as this act involves the legality OF mil
lions of dollars worth of bonds ana the
issuance of many more millions OF dol
lars worth for the completion of irriga-
tion works long suspended by litigatiol
before the supreme court, few words
as to some of the leading points OF the
law may dispel some of the ignorant
prejudice in the public mind against the
law. The supreme court took its own
time in deciding the case, but its decls-
ion, with great learning and force, an
swers every objection urged by the en-
inent counsel against the legality of the
act 1t is now the law, and those inter-
eSted may Just as well accept the result.
Lawyers who have Waged losing hght
against the law may attempt to attack
the irrigation districts for non-compl-
ance with some of the details of the law,
but as the fundamental legality of the
law has been settled by the highest tri-
bunal known to the land, any further
litigation will be born of desire to
obtain other fees, and hence will have
but little countenance from the commu-
nifty at large.
There may be a few clauses Of the
law which need legislation, and our next
assembly will attend to this, but the
Wright act is explicit as to what man
gets for his taxes, and as to the COST OF
water for irrigation.
The Wright act itself gives to every
landholder in district vote as to how
much he shall bond each acre for water
conducted to his lands. He votes bond
in accordance with the engineers idea
| of it's actual cost. The water and pipes
are furnished by the capital which
bought the bonds and when the land
owner has paid any amount, small or
great, that amount is added as having
been paid Nor his perpetual water right,
and has its cash value in selling his
lands. Many intelligent people who have
/ paid city water assessments through
! their lives have an idea that the same
| system prevails in irrigation districts
| BY way of illustration of the two sys-
TENS / will say, l have paid annually
! to the City Water company of Los An
! geles $36 for domestic purposes and for
| sprinklng flowers and grass. After pay
| ing out $500, / have no claim whatSver
on a foot of the water pipe nor gallon
of the water in their reservoir, and were
/ l to continue to pay for fifty years L
| would have no right to their water.
| In an irrigation district the water or
| pipes or canals are bought outright and
paid for in the bonds of the district and
every dollar assessed to pay the interes.
on these bonds becomes a payment to
! tndl extent loT HIS perpetual water
right ard when all the bonds are paid,
the water plant and pipes belong to the
! landowners of the district, and there is
no further assessment for water. ex-
cept the local cost of handling and de-
livering.
If a landowne- whose land is bonded
at $50 per acre. payable in twenty years.
pays his annual tax, never larger than
6 per cent, on the bond for the acre, he
can, if he chooses, let his land lie idle,
and when the bonds are paid off he has
added to the value of hib land the
amount he has paid by way of assers-
| ment
COST OF WATER. UNDER WRIGHT
ACT MUCH LESS THAN UNDER
| PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
The Rialto district has issued bonds to
the amount of $420.00O on 1900 acres of
land, which burdens each acre with a
little less than 500; now, these bonds
| draw interest at 6 per cent which would
make the assessment $3.50 per acre tc
pay interest on the bonds. No other as
sessment can be made on these lands
except for handling and delivering
which never exceeds 30 cents per acre
each year.
In contrast to the above cost, under the
Wright act. we give the enclosed lettsa