The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-22
THE WRIGHT IRRIGATION Law,

There was much quiet rejoicing IN pcT-
lions OF California last week over The de-
clslon OF the United States supreme court
ny which Judge Ross. OF the circuit court
was reversed and the celebrated Wright
irrigation iaw was declared TO De constitu-
uonaL The Wright law was enacted By
the California segisIature for the purpose
o. retaining desert land and rendering II
productive by use o. water. Under the
Law irrigation districts could be formed
and, By q majority vote Of the people Of
the district. bonds could be sold by the
district and the proceeds used 10 bring
immense tracts under profitable cult.va-
ton Advantage was taken OF the pro-
visions OF the statute and great system
of Irrigation projected which opened many
thousands OF acres that had before been
regarded as practically OF no value.
Judge Ross held that the Law was I'M
constitutional. and thereby the bonds.
which had been sold everywhere, were
rendered worthless and the work on TN
mense projected improvements stopped.
The ground for this decision WAS thst the
legislature had exceeded its authority in
delsgsttng is governmental powers to
corporations o. private character. which
would ne able 10 assume functions which.
under the constitution. belonged TO the
state alone.
II was argued against the law that IRE
spoasibse men, non-proper,y owners, with
out dollar at stake In the matter, had
been permitted under its provisions sim
ply because they We're voters. 10 saddle a
very heavy debt upon the real estate OF
Others. who objected to paying for water
on ali their land. Many land own
ers were forced into districts against their
viii, and If they refused 10 pay for bitches
and water which they ala not want, their
property Was eonhscated and sold for
taxes
u was cited that IN many instances, un-
der the Wright law. the owners of the
larger share OF the land affected we're
opposed TO the formation of an .rrlgas;ns
district. but ditch promoters By skIIIfully
including . town or village within the
limits OF the district were able 10 oatvote
The property owners interested and make
them Liable for debts they were opposed TO
contracting Judge Ross regarded this as
unjust. and maintained that a district
should include only those owners who
were wiling 10 have their property taxed
for irg.sating purposes.
II see-sa 10 be conceded. however. that
the people OF California generally believed
IN the Wright law. While u was admitted
20 work harsships ln some cases. II SEEM
Ell unfair that few non-progressive peo-
rie could have IL IN their power to pre-
vent great seml-puh.lc improvements
which the more enterprlslng portion Of a
community favored. Moreover. :, is esti-
mated that had tAe law been declared In
valid X w0u.d have worked a great hard
ship Nearly $5aoaoso has been spent al
ready for dams and bitches with a view
OF s-rigzting some 9. ceo.eoo acres OF land
that vii become very productive
The decision from Washington viii bring
eSsn; quite a revival in those states which
have adopted lrr.gating laws sornewhs.
ss-nilar &c The Wright law Utah has -
ee-vea he decision with much satisfaction.
ia California :; Is expected ;ha- ~ least
slS 30 ~ be expended IN the very near
taiurs uron irrigation improvements. TIE
progress made n California under the new
'Aw vi be watched with great s-te~es.
~ the p~e7le occupying the aria districts
q Sas state q Washington. The problem o,
water supply for chose sections which are
Hrssao3s VII se one ina, viii receive much
attention in tbs state fer many years n
cone. II tse discreet system IS f,und ~
'1soisa water cheaper tAan II can be
ee'SiAea from private ditch ccrpaaie~
iAeTs Is no eenb: me Wright law WIZ "a
carefully Investigated by those states
~a'oa eaa aeoonas r.sa ard produr,,v,
iAFease ar improved svz.s-, =. ,-..-....-