Imperial Valley press., 1922-01-27
MERGER QUESTION IS
DISCUSSED
Valley Property Gunner AnsW
ers Recent Editorial of the
Los Angeles Times

w. F. Thorne of the Thorne-Hil
Investment Co. has handed the fol
lowing communication to the Press
with the explanation that the Original
has been submitted to the Los Ange.
les Times in answer to an editorial
recently appearing in that paper
Editor Press.
(Commun:cated)
| trust you will grant me space to
answer your editorial, 'The Imperial
Merger Plan." l speak for those
whose interests are in all parts OF
the Valley alike-not for any syndi-
cate whose investments are confined
to any one section of it.
l. You say you opposed the
formation of the District when it
was proposed some five years
ago, because the control would
pass to the voters, and politics
would enter into the manage
ment.
But the District was formed by
vote some ten years ago and largely
because the California Development
Company let the system run down
for the express purpose of compell-
ing the water companies to buy them
out, causing the District to issue
bonds for more than the system was
worth, with enough more to put the
system in usable condition. The
mutual water companies were origin
ally organized because the C. ID. Com
pany would not put in distributing
systems for them, each one formed
whenever large enough body Of
homesteaders or desert entrymen JUS
titled the building of the canals.
When the District purchased the c.
ID. system the mutuals should have
been abandoned and the management
all combined and concentrated, with
one representative from each water
company district constituting an Ad-
visory Water Board. But they con-
tinued in the same old rut. Each had
its own special problems and inter
ests and each naturally worked, M;
for the interests of the Valley as a
whole, but for its own selfish ends,
whereas, with a central management
and a sectional advisory board, one
system for all, maintained by effici-
ent organization, would have been
less expensive and brought greater
benefit and renown to this wonderful
ly fertile Valley.
2. You say: Before such
merger is safe legislation should
be enacted such as Assembly,
man Beal advocated giving only
property owners the right to
elect the directors of the Dis
trict," probably meaning the land
owners. s.
(a) While we advocate this meas
ure for the control of water districts
let us call attention to other equally
large irrigation districts in Califor-
ria, such as the Turlock and Modesto,
controlled by the voters as this
would be, conducted with far greater
economy and efficiency than have
been the Imperial districts. Imperial
Valley cannot afofrd to wait on pos
siblity of such legislation. The state
banking commission has sound reas-
ons for refusing to give its sanction
to further bonds under the present
system of management.
,(b) Your argument for real estate
ownership qualification for electors
in an irrigation district would apply
equally we'll to bond issues in mum
icipal, county and state elections.
Politics under the present dual
system is worse than it would be
under the changed conditions. There
are now twelve or more political pots
boiling merrily against one another
and bubbling over against the big
central pot.
3. You say: "The drainage
feature of the merger plan ap-
pears unjust because it is pro-
posed to bond the whole district
in order to drain water-logged
lands in a limited area"
That argument is certainly un-
sound. The water-logged territory
is growing quite extensive and is in
creasing rapidly. The selfish localist
boastng of freedom from it now will
find himself confronted with it to-
morrow. And this advancing terror
depreciates the value of every acre
Of Valley land more than the total
cost per acre for reclaiming the acre
age as whole.
Not only this: but the damage is
caused by the entire irrigation sys-
tenn, not by any local district alone,
and should be properly borne by all
alike. g
A further reason for the merger is
this: the mutuals attempt to make
the land owners water right depend
cnt on his payment of an assessment
on a certain date. That pretense of
thus robbing him of a water right
cannot be upheld in Court. The bonds
against his land constitute his water
right. The assessments thus levied
should be instead included in the
District tax assessment aginst his
land, his bills for the water used be-
ing the only charge for which his
water could be discontinued. At