The magnitude of many irrigation enter prises places them beyond the ability of in dividuals as well as of the average corpora tion, and this led to the adoption in Cali fornia in 1887 of what is known as the Wright Act, which has been followed in several of the other states. Its purpose is the organiza tion of irrigation districts; as such it is a public corporation organized for the purpose of constructing and operating improvements that are for the public welfare; its officers are public officials ; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. V. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369. By the United States Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, irrigation was greatly aided ; it provided that all money received from the sale of public land in the arid and semi-arid states, except Texas, should be used in the construction of irrigation works.
In developing irrigation projects in con nection with which there is a considerable proportion of land in private ownership, it has been found necessary to provide some means of dealing with the private owners as a body ; the secretary of the interior has therefore required that the settlers who will ultimately receive water from the projected system shall form an incorporated associa tion. Hence laws have been passed in sev eral of the states providing for the incorpo ration of water users' associations ; Col. Ses sions 1905; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
For the rights of priority to take water from natural streams, set Colorado Acts, 1881, and Wyoming Acts, 1891, which have fur nished the basis of the two systems general ly followed.
See Mills, Irrigation Manual.
On a bill filed by Kansas to restrain Colo rado and certain corporations organized un der its laws from diverting the waters of the Arkansas river for the irrigation of lands in Colorado, thereby preventing the customary flow of its waters into and through Kansas (to which a demurrer was filed), it was held that it would not be unreasonable to enforce against Colorado its own local rule as to the use of flowing water for irrigation, yet as it did not appear that the detriment to Kan sas, while substantial, was so great as to make the appropriation by Colorado an in equitable apportionment between the two states, the bill was dismissed, without preju dice to the right of Kansas to begin new pro ceedings whenever it shall appear that the substantial interests of Kansas are being jured to the extent of destroying the equita ble apportionment of benefits between the two states ; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. gd. 956.
See, generally, Black's Pomeroy on Wa ters ; Hall; Kinney, Irrig. ; 5 Special Con sular Reports, 1891; Gould, Waters § 217 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 4 Pac. 919, 10 Pac. 674 ; Senate Report on Irrigation, 1890, where all the acts in the irrigation states are set forth, together with a digest of reported cases ; Mills, Constitutional Annotations § 510, where the cases and constitutional pro visions are collected ; WATERS.