I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that it holds unconstitutional section 21100 of the Water Code as applied to *670candidates and voters in the Imperial Irrigation District. As noted by the majority, “Imperial is singular among irrigation districts in that it has more residents, land and employees than the others.” (Ante, p. 669, fn. omitted.) Imperial is unique in its great size, the variety of its activities, and its undoubted direct and substantial effect upon the thousands of nonproperty owners residing within its boundaries. Under such circumstances, it would be constitutionally impermissible to deprive nonproperty owners of the right to seek election as district director.
On the other hand, there exist numerous smaller irrigation districts throughout this state whose primary function is, as the name implies, the irrigation of farmland, and whose principal constituents are property-owning farmers or ranchers. As the majority appear to recognize and accept, a requirement that district directors own real property within the district may be constitutionally proper in those situations wherein it may be demonstrated that the district’s functions have a disproportionate effect and impose a distinctive burden upon landowners. This principle was recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court in its consideration of California water storage districts. (Wat. Code, § 39000 et seq.; Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719 [35 L.Ed.2d 659, 93 S.Ct. 1224].) As stated in Salyer, “. .. the appellee water storage district, by reason of its special limited purpose and of the disproportionate effect of its activities on landowners as a group, is . . . [an] exception to the [one person-one vote] rule .. ..” (P. 728 [35 L.Ed.2d p. 666].)
The special importance to property owners of the financial burdens imposed by an irrigation district has long been legislatively recognized. This may be seen in the requirement that in the formation of a district under either of the statutory alternative methods, the holders of title, on the one hand, to a majority, or, on the other hand, to 20 percent in value of the land, must join in the proposal. (Wat. Code, § 20700.)
I suggest that the question whether section 21100 is constitutional as applied to irrigation districts other than Imperial must await a case-by-case determination in the light of the principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Salyer.
McComb, J., and Clark, J., concurred.
On September 2, 1976, the judgment was modified to read as printed above.