Colburn v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 14 May 1913
• Parties: F. J. COLBURN, Appellant, v. R. B. WILSON, C. L. SPAULDING and W. H. SHANE, Directors, and the EMMETT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

132 P. 579

24 Idaho 94

F. J. COLBURN, Appellant, v. R. B. WILSON, C. L. SPAULDING and W. H. SHANE, Directors, and the EMMETT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 14, 1913

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-POWER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS-ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES-BENEFITS.

1. Sec 2407, Rev. Codes, empowers the board of directors of an irrigation district to "prepare an assessment-book containing a full and accurate list and description of all the lands of the district, and a list of the persons who own claim, or have in possession or control thereof during the year.... and proceed to levy an assessment upon all the lands of the district for expense of maintaining and operating the property of the district. Said assessment shall be spread upon all the lands of the district.... proportionate to the benefits received by such lands growing out of the maintenance and operations of the said works of said district."

2. It is a well-recognized rule of law that a section of the statute should be construed in the light of the purpose for which the legislature enacted the particular act, of which such section is a part.

3. It was the intention of the legislature in enacting title 14 of the Rev. Codes, providing for the organization and government of irrigation districts, which includes sec. 2407, that the lands irrigable under the system within the district should be considered as a whole, and such lands must be assessed for the maintenance and operation of the water system, at the same rate, where the benefits, that is, the water needed and received, are the same.

4. "Benefits," as used in sec. 2407, Rev. Codes, in connection with assessments for maintenance, mean such benefits as contribute to promote the prosperity of the district, and add value to the property of the respective owners of the entire district, and that such improvement of land in any portion of the district adds to and increases the value of the lands of the entire district, as the water is applied and devoted to a beneficial use by the owners through said system.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. Edward L. Bryan, Judge.

An action to restrain the collection of an assessment for maintenance on the lands of the plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Wood & Driscoll, for Appellant.

Maintenance assessments are special assessments, and will be set aside by the courts if it clearly appears they are not levied in accordance with benefits received. (Nampa etc. Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 11 Idaho 474-489, 83 P. 499; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; City of Nampa v. Nampa etc. Dist., 19 Idaho 779-787, 115 P. 979; Boehmer v. Big Rock Creek Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 19, 48 P. 908; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329, 77 P. 937; 4 Dillon, Mun. Corp., 5th ed., sec. 1430; 1 Page & Jones on Taxation by Assessment, p. 571, sec. 373.)

The rule of apportionment in accordance with benefits is the rule governing this species of taxation, even in the absence of a statutory requirement to that effect, and assessments which do not at least presumptively or constructively accord with that rule are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution and void. (Hamilton, Law of Special Assessments, secs. 236-239, 474, 795; Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 19 S.Ct. 187, 43 L.Ed. 443; Hanscom v. City of Omaha, 11 Neb. 37, 7 N.W. 739; People ex rel. Marion v. City of Brooklyn, 23 Barb. 174; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 47 Minn. 406, 50 N.W. 476; Palmer v. City of Danville, 154 Ill. 156, 38 N.E. 1067; Town of Elma v. Carney, 9 Wash. 466, 37 P. 707; Corcoran v. Board of Aldermen, 199 Mass. 5, 85 N.E. 155, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 187.)

Benefits in special assessments are value added to the property assessed, and the terms "increase in value" and "benefits" are interchangeable. (2 Page & Jones, Special Assessments, secs. 652-654.)

Thompson & Buckner and Richards & Haga, for Respondents.

The term "benefit" is defined by Webster as follows: "Whatever contributes to promote prosperity; adds value to property; advantage; profit." (Synod of Dak. v. State, 2 S.D. 366, 50 N.W. 632, 14 L. R. A. 418; Garrett v. City, 25 Mo. 505, 69 Am. Dec. 478.)

The language of the statute repeating the phrase "all the lands" necessarily excludes the idea of any local assessment--that is, any assessment that does not include all the lands in the district. Therefore, the statute prohibits any local or special assessments within the district as is permitted in municipal assessments. (Herrmann v. Town of Guttenberg, 62 N.J.L. 605, 43 A. 703; Shurtleff v. City of Chicago, 190 Ill. 473, 60 N.E. 870.)

Special assessments are made on the assumption that a portion of the public is to be specially and peculiarly benefited in the enhancement of the value of their property peculiarly situated as regards the contemplated expenditure of public funds, and a special contribution is demanded in consideration of the special benefit to the person receiving it. (Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Decatur, 147 U.S. 190, 13 S.Ct. 293, 37 L.Ed. 132; Cooley on Taxation, p. 416; Peake v. City of New Orleans etc., 139 U.S. 342, 11 S.Ct. 541, 35 L.Ed. 131.)

In City of Shreveport v. Prescott, 51 La. Ann. 1895, 26 So. 664, 46 L. R. A. 193, it is held local assessments are a species of taxes on supposed benefits. (Griggsry Const. Co. v. Freeman, 108 La. 435, 32 So. 399, 58 L. R. A. 349; Seanor v. Board of Commrs. of Whatcom Co., 13 Wash. 48, 42 P. 555.)

STEWART, J. Ailshie, C. J., concurs. Sullivan, J., did not sit in this case.

OPINION

STEWART, J.

The facts as alleged in the complaint, to which a general demurrer was filed, are as follows: F. J. Colburn is a resident land owner and taxpayer on what is known as the north side tract, in the Emmett Irrigation District, and brings this action on behalf of himself and other parties similarly interested. R. B. Wilson, C. L. Spaulding and W. H. Shane are directors of the Emmett Irrigation District, and H. O. Haylor is secretary of said district. The action was instituted to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the collection of the maintenance tax on plaintiff's land for the current year until the same shall be corrected and spread in proportion to the benefits received.

The Emmett Irrigation District is the owner of a certain canal system known as the Canyon Canal. This canal diverts water from the north side of the Payette river in Boise county, Idaho, and conveys the same thence for a long distance along the north side of the Payette river into and through the Emmett Irrigation District, where the waters of said canal are distributed over the tracts of land comprising the district. The Payette river runs from the east to the west through the Emmett Irrigation District and cuts the district into two large tracts of land, one situated upon the north side of the river and the other upon the south side of the river, and such tracts are connected only by a narrow strip of land at or near the point where the waters of said canal are divided. The canal system is constructed in the shape of the letter "Y." The main canal, or leg of the "Y," issues from the north side of the Payette river, some twenty miles above the town of Emmett, and follows down the north side of the river until it passes inside the boundaries of the district. After it enters the boundaries of the district at the east end, a short distance above the lands to be watered, the canal branches into two parts, forming the arms of the "Y." The southerly arm crosses the Payette river by means of a syphon, and follows along the foothills on the south side of the river through an open cut for a long distance, and finally distributes its waters over a narrow strip of land lying along these foothills. The land watered by this branch consists in all of about 4,800 acres, and will be referred to hereafter as the south side lands. The northerly arm of the "Y," after the arms part, continues from the junction point along the northerly side of the river and waters about 18,000 acres of land near Emmett. These lands will be referred to as the north side tract. The north and south arms of the main canal constitute the canal system within the irrigation district and furnish water for the purpose of irrigating lands within the district. By this method both north and south side tracts derive benefit from the point where the waters of the main canal are divided. The lands on the south side are in no way irrigated from the arm on the north side, neither are the lands on the north side watered from the arm on the south side.

It also appears that F. J. Colburn, the appellant, appeared before the board of directors of the Emmett Irrigation District in behalf of plaintiff and the other land owners owning land upon the north side of the Payette river in said district, and filed protest in writing with the board against the extension of said expenditures so far as they related to the operation of the north and south side distributing ditches below the division point of said canal equally over all the lands of the said district, on the ground that said lands were not equally benefited by operating and maintaining said distributing canals, and particularly because the north side lands were in no way benefited by the cost of maintaining and operating the south side distributing canal; and for the further reason that the cost per acre for operating and maintaining said south side canal was much greater than the cost of operating the said north side distributing canal.

On September 16, 1912, the board of directors sat as a board of correction...