, 1896-11-30
THE WRIGHT LAW.

The Wright irrigation law. recently
declared constitutional by the supreme
court of the United States and which
has been studied with a great deal of
interest by the people of the entire arid
region, is thus commented upon by the
San Francisco Argonuat:
The supreme court of the United
States has declared that the Wright ir-
rigation law is constitutional. and thus
the irrigation system of this state is
placed upon an unambiguous basis aft
er years of litigation. The Wright law
provides that the owners of contiguous
land. not less than five in number. may
form an irrigation district. They pre-
sent a petition to the supervisors of the
county in which the land is situated.
setting forth the boundaries of the pro-
posed district, the size of the various
tracts Of land contained in il. the own
ers of these tracts, the acreage of the
whole district, and other essential mat
tiers. Upon favorable action by the
uPN h' u" / vi bllt Iiuu
meet. adopt bylaws for the govern
ment of the district, and elect trustees.
These trustees condemn the necessary
land, levy al assessment to cover the
expenses, and issue any bonds that
may be voted.
The validity of the law was brought
before the United States supreme court
in two cases, the one on appeal from
the supreme court of this state. in
which the law was upheld and the 9TH
err on appeal from the circui; court. in
which the opposite opinion vas render
ed by Judge Ross. In his opinion in
the Fallbrook case. Judge Ross held
that the taking Of private land for pur-
poses if irrigation, under the Wright
law. was not a taking for a public use,
and was therefore hot Il proper cxer,
else of the right of eminent domain.
AS was said in these columns. at the
time the decision of Judge Ross was
handed down. If this construction of
the law was TO hold. it would render
worthless $4,000, 900 worth of bonds
that had already been placed with bona
fide purchasers, and sll 900. 900. more
in bonds hat had been voted but no,
yet sold. Further, it would destroy,
for the time being. the agricultural in
terests of the state. so far as they de,
pended upon irrigation, thereby cost
ing the ppoDlp untplI millions
Justice Peckham. in rendering the
opinion of the court, considers the
question of What constitutes a public
use at considerable. length. AS he
points out, what is a public use fire.
quently and largely depends upon the
circumstances and facts surrounding
the particular subject-ma1ter in regard
to which the character of the use is
questioned To provide for irrigation
in a state where there is no color OF
necessity therefor with any fair mean
ing of the term, and simply for the pur-
pose of gratifying the taste of a farmer,
or his desire to enter upon the cultiva-
ton of an entirely new crop. might be
regarded as an improper exercise OF
the legislative will But. in this state,
it is generally recognized that there is
a large area of arid land. With prop.
er irrigation, this land can be made TO
yield large crops: without irrigation. it
must remain absolutely unproductive.
II the Wright law. upon which the sys-
TEN of irrigation depends. is held to be
invalid, an effectual obstacle will re,
main in the way of the advance of a
large portion of the state in material
wealth and prosperity. To irrigate
and thus bring into possible cultiva-
ton these large masses of otherwise
worthless lands, would seem to be a
matter of public interest not confined
to the landowners or to any one sec
ton Of the state.
The fact that the use of water is lin
tied to the land owner is not a fatal OBJ
lection to the legislation. 1t is not es-
sentdabp that an entire community, or