The opinion
TRAYNOR, J.
I concur.
It is my opinion that the judgment herein follows necessarily from the premise established by the many California cases cited in the majority opinion that upon the issuance of bonds by a reclamation district a contract is created between the landowners of the district and the bondholders. Although persuasive arguments can be made against the soundness of this premise (see eases cited in 100 A.L.R. 164 ), it has become a rule of property governing the rights and duties of landowners and bondholders under past bond issues. It does not follow that the reasoning underlying the cases establishing the rule must be applied to future bond issues. (See concurring opinion in Boyd v. Oser, 23 Cal.2d 613, 623 [ 145 P.2d 312 ].) This court could provide a sound rule for the future by declaring that although those eases govern past bond issues, they are to be deemed overruled as applied to future bond issues. (Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364 [ 53 S.Ct. 145 , 77 L.Ed. 360 , 85 A.L.R. 254 ] ; People v. Ryan, 152 Cal. 364, 369 [ 92 P. 853 ] ; People v. Maughs, 149 Cal. 253, 263 [ 86 P. 187 ].) A majority of this court, however, appears unwilling to reexamine the earlier cases at this time.
It bears noting that even though these eases are not overruled, the Legislature is free to provide that in future bond issues the relationship between landowner and district is that of sovereign and taxpayer and does not give the landowner contractual rights. The relationship between district and bondholder should of course remain contractual and the bondholder ’s rights free from impairment.