Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0-0 ___ b<1 0 <br /> <br />companies as nonprofit entities, in which rights to water service and responsibilities for payment <br /> <br />of costs were prorated according to ownership of shares in the mutual. <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />With the passage of the Wright Act (1887) in California, local government entities with <br /> <br />limited general taxation powers entered into water development. Local irrigation districts were <br /> <br />empowered to raise revenues by any combination of water charges and property taxation . chosen <br /> <br />by its elected board of directors. Water rights were either prorated according to land <br /> <br />ownership, or allocated according to discretionary powers of the board -- whose legal duty was . <br /> <br />to be "just and equitable." <br /> <br />Public irrigation districts were financial failures until the 19205. Most of the Wright Act <br /> <br />districts formed in California were dissolved within a few years of organization. Mutuals and <br /> <br />partnerships remained the dominant source of irrigation development until the late 19205 and <br /> <br />early 19305. Then public ownership blossomed with the growth of federal water projects, and, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />after World War IT, with the financial advantages of tax-exempt public district debt which grcw <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />with higher federal personal income tax rates. <br /> <br />An article by this author provides a review of the pattern of water use, irrigated acreage,. <br /> <br />and invested capital by mutuals, irrigation districts, projects operated by the U.S. Bureau of <br /> <br />Reclamation, state/local governments, and other types of water agencies.3 The most recent data <br /> <br />available is from the 1978 Agricultural Census, which was the last year that the national <br /> <br />3 See Smith, "Troubled Waters: Financing Water in the West", Investment and Financing <br />in the West 13-27 (1984). <br /> <br />5 <br />