American Falls Reservoir District v. Thrall

• Decision Date: 13 May 1924
• Parties: AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT, a Corporation, R. E. SHEPHERD, H. K. WILEY, W. F. ALWORTH, F. E. SAYRE, A. F. MCCLOUD, J. H. BARKER and W. H. SPENCE, Members of the Board of Directors of Said AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT, Respondents, v. J. B. THRALL, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

228 P. 236

39 Idaho 105

AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT, a Corporation, R. E. SHEPHERD, H. K. WILEY, W. F. ALWORTH, F. E. SAYRE, A. F. MCCLOUD, J. H. BARKER and W. H. SPENCE, Members of the Board of Directors of Said AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT, Respondents, v. J. B. THRALL, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 13, 1924

IRRIGATION DISTRICT-MANNER OF CREATING SAME-CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS - ASSESSMENTS FOR BENEFITS - APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS-IRRIGATION DISTRICT BONDS-GENERAL LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DISTRICT-CREATION OF A SAFETY FUND-DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS-MAY BE COLLECTED BY COUNTY OFFICERS.

1. C S., sec. 4364, requires the board of directors of an irrigation district to file a petition in the district court of the county in which its office is situated praying that the proceedings it has taken may be examined, approved and confirmed by the district court. A petition may be filed after the organization of the district is complete for a confirmation of the proceedings thus far taken or after the authorization of any issue of bonds or after the sale or exchange of an issue of bonds. Where the procedure is by separate petitions for the confirmation of different portions of the proceedings subsequent proceedings shall not be considered as authorizing a rehearing of the matter theretofore heard and decided.

2. Where a petition or petitions have been presented to the district court for the confirmation of any part of the proceedings that have been taken and a decree has been made and entered confirming the same and no appeal has been taken therefrom, it is final and conclusive as to the proceedings taken prior thereto, unless such decree is assailed by a direct attack or unless it appears from the record that the proceedings taken and confirmed were taken in such manner that the district court was without jurisdiction to confirm the same.

3. Under the Idaho irrigation district law the bonds of the district are a general lien upon the lands of the district and all of said lands are and must remain liable for the district assessments levied for the payment of such obligations until the same are fully paid and discharged.

4. The provisions of chapter 84, Sess. Laws 1923, p. 96, which authorizes the board of directors of an irrigation district to make an annual levy of fifteen per cent in excess of the amount required to meet the payment of principal and interest on its bonds, if all the district taxes were paid without delinquency, which fund is to be used to meet any deficiency caused by delinquencies in the payment of assessments and such fund to be kept intact and never reduced below ten per cent of the unpaid bonded indebtedness, is a valid delegation of taxing power by the legislature to an irrigation district.

5. The bonds or other obligations of an irrigation district may contain a provision that the collection of the principal and interest of such bonds or other obligations shall be made by the county officers of the county in which the lands taxed are situate, and when such condition is indorsed upon the obligation it is irrevocable until such indebtedness is paid.

6. An irrigation district is a public or quasi-public corporation not organized for governmental purposes but to conduct the business for the private benefit of the owners of the land within its limits, and as respects its contracts made in the manner prescribed by law it is a municipal corporation.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. William A. Babcock, Judge.

Action upon the petition of the American Falls Reservoir District for examination, approval and confirmation of the apportionment of the benefits and of the cost of construction of the American Falls Reservoir by the United States, and for the purchase of a proportionate share of the storage capacity thereof, and of the water available therein, by the American Falls Reservoir District from the United States, and for the approval of the resolution of the board of directors, to issue $ 2,700,000 of the bonds of said district for the payment thereof. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed as modified.

Judgment affirmed.

E. D Reynolds, for Appellant.

An irrigation district is a public corporation. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304.)

An irrigation district is a municipal corporation within the meaning of a provision prohibiting the incurring of indebtedness beyond a certain limit by cities, towns, counties and other municipal corporations. (Alfalfa Irr. Dist. v. Collins, 46 Neb. 411, 64 N.W. 1086.)

The organization of an irrigation district and all proceedings in connection therewith, the voting of bonds and other matters, including the decree of confirmation by the district court, are proceedings in rem. (Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 217, 101 P. 81.)

Irrigation district taxes levied under the irrigation district act are only local improvement or special assessment taxes and not general taxes, though levied annually during the life of the district; no direct benefit to the public ensuing but only to each individual land owner supplied with water. (Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Irr. Dist., 66 Colo. 219, 181 P. 123.)

Special assessments to be levied under irrigation district act are not taxes within the general tax law and are not debts of the individual, but are a lien against the land for its own benefits, not embraced within the meaning of the word "taxation." (Nelson v. Board of Commrs., 62 Utah 218, 218 P. 952; In re Walker Irr. Dist., 44 Nev. 321, 195 P. 327.)

An assessment wholly dependent upon the benefits to accrue, no assessments being made where no benefits accrue, is not a tax within the purview and meaning of the constitution, being a charge in rem against the specific tracts of land assessed for benefits. (Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 P. 785.)

All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects. (Art. 7, sec. 5, Constitution of Idaho.)

The irrigation district law of Idaho fails to provide that the district may use irrigation works without purchasing works already in operation or construct new works, as the case may be. (C. S., secs. 4313, 4314; C. S., c. 175.)

Where the law provides a hearing, the hearing must be held. (Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103; Denver v. State Investment Co., 49 Colo. 244, 112 P. 789, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 395; Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 235, 101 P. 87; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; In re Central Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 382, 49 P. 354.)

The right to levy tax by which one may be deprived of his property exists by virtue of the statute alone which must be strictly followed. One who is not served with notice in any manner and who does not enter his appearance, and upon whom there is no attempt at service, cannot be held to have waived any right. (Payson v. People, 175 Ill. 267, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 27, 51 N.E. 588.)

James R. Bothwell, for Respondents.

The decree of the district court of Twin Falls county, entered on March 24, 1923, confirming the organization of the territory therein described as an irrigation district under the laws of this state is final and conclusive and binding on all the world. The questions before the court in that proceeding are res adjudicata and may not be again reviewed in this or any other proceeding. (C. S., secs. 4364, 4366; Nampa Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 11 Idaho 474, 83 P. 499; Crall v. Board of Directors of Poso Irr. Dist., 87 Cal. 140, 144, 26 P. 797; Rialto Irr. Dist. v. Brandon, 103 Cal. 384, 37 P. 484; People v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist., 128 Cal. 477, 61 P. 86; In re Davis Estate, 136 Cal. 590, 69 P. 412; In re Leonis Estate, 138 Cal. 194, 71 P. 171; Progressive Irr. Dist. v. Anderson, 19 Idaho 504, 114 P. 16; Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 235, 101 P. 87; Emmett Irr. Dist. v. Shane, 19 Idaho 332, 113 P. 444; Black Canyon Irr. Dist. v. Fallon, 21 Idaho 537, 122 P. 537; Smith v. Progressive Irr. Dist., 28 Idaho 812, 156 P. 1133; Russell v. Irish, 20 Idaho 194, 118 P. 501; Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 578, 102 P. 904; Miller v. Perris Irr. Dist., 85 F. 693; In re Walker Irr. Dist., 44 Nev. 321, 195 P. 327; 2 Kinney on Irrigation, sec. 1421; Hanson v. Kittitas Reclamation Dist., 75 Wash. 297, 134 P. 1083; Herritt v. Warm Springs Irr. Dist., 86 Ore. 343, 168 P. 609; Holland v. Avondale Irr. Dist., 30 Idaho 479, 166 P. 259; Weber v. Jordan Valley Irr. Dist. (Or.), 220 P. 146.)

While the present proceeding is in the name of reopening the case filed for the confirmation of the organization, it does not authorize the court to proceed with a rehearing of the matters that were before the court and disposed of at the former hearing. (Progressive Irr. Dist. v. Anderson, 19 Idaho 504, 114 P. 16.)

The execution of the agreement by and between the district and the various boards of county commissioners of the counties in which the lands of the district lie providing that the county officers shall collect the district assessments is sustained by a valid statute. (Chap. 178, Sess. Laws 1923.)

"Said bonds and the interest thereon shall be paid by revenue derived from the assessment upon the land in the district; and all the land in the district shall be and remain liable to be assessed for such payment." (C. S., sec. 4369.)

"We regard it as clear that the bonds here in question constitute a general obligation of the irrigation district to pay the principal and interest thereof as therein provided for and that a bona fide holder of such bonds is not limited to any particular fund." (Rialto Irr. Dist. v. Stowell, and Stowell...