Baugham v. Willacy County Water C. & Imp. Dist. No. 1, 3193.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1938
• Docket Number: No. 3193.,3193.
• Citation: 112 S.W.2d 318
• Parties: BAUGHAM v. WILLACY COUNTY WATER CONTROL & IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

112 S.W.2d 318

BAUGHAM v. WILLACY COUNTY WATER CONTROL & IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 et al.

No. 3193.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

January 13, 1938.

Rehearing Denied January 19, 1938.

Appeal from District Court, Willacy County; A. M. Kent, Judge.

Suit by M. A. Baugham against the Willacy County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 and others to determine the validity of a contract proposed to be entered into between the defendant and the Public Works Administration, an agency of the federal government. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Gaines, Gaines & Roberts, of San Antonio, for appellant.

W. P. Dumas, of Dallas, Smith, Smith & Hall, of Edinburg, and Jesse G. Foster and R. F. Robinson, both of Raymondville, for appellees.

COMBS, Justice.

M. A. Baugham, property owner and taxpayer in the Willacy County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1, brought this suit for himself and for the use and benefit of all other property owners of the district. The district and its board of directors were named as defendants. The purpose of the suit, as stated by the appellant in his brief, was to determine the validity of a contract proposed to be entered into between the district and the PWA, an agency of the federal government, for the construction of an irrigation project within said district and for the issuance by the district and purchase by the government of certain improvement bonds for financing the project. The plaintiff sued to enjoin the making of the contract and upon a trial to the court without a jury the suit was denied, and he has appealed.

The Willacy County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 embraced 129,000 acres of land in the counties of Willacy and Hidalgo as a conservation and reclamation district. It was first organized under general law in 1926. In 1929, at a special election, the voters authorized the issuance of bonds of the district in the amount of $7,500,000, and authorized the levying, assessment, and collection of an ad valorem tax on all of the taxable property of the district for the payment of said bonds and interest thereon. By act of the Legislature, chapter 166, Acts of 1929, Regular Session, said district was constituted a conservation and reclamation district under article 16, section 59 of the Constitution of the state of Texas, and the provisions of chapter 25 of the General Laws, 39th Legislature, Regular Session, as amended by chapter 107 of the General Laws, 40th Legislature, First Called Session, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 7880 — 1 et seq. Said act validated and approved all former acts and proceedings of the district, and specifically approved its prior act in authorizing by vote the issuance of the bonds and the levying of the ad valorem tax for their payment. Thereafter, approximately one and one-half million dollars of said bonds were issued but were not sold because the bond market was low. Said bonds, however, were pledged as security for "interim bonds" issued for the purpose of raising money for making surveys, purchasing right of way, and beginning the installation of an irrigation system.

March 1, 1934, the contract in question was entered into with the PWA. Certain changes and amendments were made subsequently and before the filing of this suit. The contract, which is fully pleaded, is quite lengthy. Suffice to say that it provides for the construction of a system of irrigation according to approved plans and specifications at a total cost of $4,853,000. Of that amount the government is to contribute $890,000 and the balance of $3,963,000 is to be contributed by the district by the issuance of bonds of that amount out of the original issue of $7,500,000; said bonds to be purchased by the government. It is also provided that refunding bonds be issued to take up and retire the outstanding interim bonds; said refunding bonds to be subordinate to the bonds purchased by the government. In accordance with the contract the board of directors passed the necessary orders issuing said bonds and levying an ad valorem tax on all of the taxable property of the district for payment of the principal and interest as it accrues. The contract also provides for placing the funds in a special deposit, and for their payment on approved estimates of the government engineer, etc.

Appellant concedes that the district was legally constituted and that the bonds in the amount of $7,500,000 were legally and validly authorized to be issued. He predicates this suit upon a contention that to carry out the contract between the district and the PWA will result in supplying irrigation to only a part of the lands of the district, and that a large part of the lands within the district, including his own, will receive no benefit from the proposed irrigation project, and consequently that the levying of an ad valorem tax upon all the property of the district, for financing the project, is an unfair and discriminatory apportionment of the cost, resulting in illegal discrimination against the plaintiff and other landowners similarly situated.

In that connection the trial court found that the particular project covered by the contract will provide irrigation for 74,700 acres of land; that said acreage was all the land in said district that was cleared and ready for cultivation at the time the contract in question was made. He further found that it was the intention of the district and its board of directors to extend irrigation to the remaining lands of the district, including ...