Imperial Valley press., 1923-01-20
GEO. A. CARTER
CANDIDATE FOR
DIST. DIRECTOR

| hereby announce that | am Il
candidate for Director of the Second
Division of the Imperial Irrigation
District, which includes FL Centre
Seeley, Dogwood, McCabe, Date
Silsbee, Dixieland and the contign-
Gus farming community.
My only excuse for becoming .
candidate, is, that rs a land owner
| am not satisfied with either tho
past performances of the present
incumbent or with the platform OF
his hitherto only opponent.
The expense of the Irrigation
District. to my mind, is preposter
Gus. Without rendering any more
service, the directors have, i'll re-
cent years, vastly increased the eX
pensc. One candidate, in his plat
form, says he favors economy, pro
vided it can be had without i'm
pairing efficiency. With me ther,
is no eff about the matter.
know the expenses can be decreased
and the efficiency increased ut the
same time. If | am elected the OK
!
get two other directors to vote with
me. and if | cannot get that, | will
within ninety days after | take, o.
flee, tell the public what director
are blocking economy, and appeal ,G
the people of their districts to re
place them.
!. First of all, | favor a busines
man for manager, rather than AZ
engineer. There are men of known
reputation for securing efficiency
with economy, who can lop off the
waste of the present situation
which saving alone would take care
of all engineering necessities. Com
pctcnt irrigation engineers can b
had for half what we are paying
the coterie now engaged. There is
enough overhead expense in the
District office for a district ter
times our size. The money obtained
from the sale of drainage bonds is
being frittered away, but the land
of four at least of the present direc
tors are cared for. There will he
drain past Mr.. Brecdlove s land
One past Mr.. McPherrin S land
The rest of us shall be obliged tt
90 without drains. or vote another
bond issue. If the voter will p'
along the Date Canal between +
Centre and Imperial and look at ths
District Drain. he will not see any
water. but can at least see where
the money is going.
In one of the main issues, that Of
reducing expenditures, extravaganza
aud waste. to Il policy of economy
and efficiency, one candidate doc
not pretend TO know whether any
economy can be had without i'm
nairing efficiency. Why then should
he oppose the present incnmbe1t
whose policy as director, and tho
results. are palpablv visible.
With the incumbent's s policy well
defined. the other candidate seek
ing his place on the directorate, an
nonnces that he is in favor of FREE
water to wash the alkali and worth
less land. The incumbent has no
stated his position on this question
Apparently, this is the only varianc
between them.
I cannot see the sense or justice
of further burdening the new pro
ductive lands. which are pavinG
higher taxes because of the salt
and worthless lands excluded from
tax. to make valuable, privat,
land owners holdings. All irriga
ting water in this irrigation dis
trict. costs money, and free deliv
cry is alike unfair to city tax pay
ers and tax paving fc>~mers.
If we can possibly spare any
money, | favor so extending oul
system on the good and productive
| lands, rs to permit subdivision, ano
put n farmer on every forty acre:
| of good land. rather than waste ou'
| cash on hard and all;ali lands thai
| have been known to be inferior
since the settlement of the valley
| began. Careful examination doe,