Hanson v. Kittitas Reclamation Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 September 1913
• Citation: 134 P. 1083,75 Wash. 297
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HANSON et al. v. KITTITAS RECLAMATION DIST. et al.

134 P. 1083

75 Wash. 297

HANSON et al. v. KITTITAS RECLAMATION DIST. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 8, 1913

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; W. O Chapman, Judge.

Action by Olaf Hanson and others against the Kittitas Reclamation District and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Ballinger Battle, Hulbert & Shorts, of Seattle, and Parker & Richards, of North Yakima, for appellants.

Bogle, Graves, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, for respondents.

FULLERTON, J.

The appellants, plaintiffs below, severally own tracts of land situated within the boundaries of the Kittitas Reclamation District. By this action they seek to have their lands excluded therefrom and to have the officers of the district enjoined from levying taxes, assessments, or other charges on behalf of the district which will incumber or cloud the title to their lands. To the complaint an answer was interposed, and to the answer a reply. When the case was called for trial on the issues as thus made, the defendants, respondents here, moved for judgment upon the pleadings. This motion the trial court granted, entering a judgment to the effect that the plaintiffs take nothing by their action.

The pleadings show that the district in question was organized under the statutes relating to the organization and government of irrigation districts. Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 6416-6494. The complaint does not question the regularity of the proceedings had in the organization of the district in so far as they are disclosed by the records of such proceedings, but facts are alleged which are thought to show that the board of county commissioners, before whom the district was organized, did not have jurisdiction to include the lands of the appellants within the district, and facts which go to the regularity of the proceedings had in the organization of the district that do not appear on the face of the record, together with certain matters occurring since the formation of the district which are thought to render the bond issue illegal. The respondents for answer deny the facts on which the jurisdictional question is based, and also the facts concerning the irregularities thought to have occurred in the organization of the district and in the issuance of the bonds, and to all of the issues sought to be raised they enter a plea of res judicata. They allege that, subsequent to the organization of the irrigation district, the directors thereof, as they were empowered to do under the statutes (Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 6489-6494), brought a special proceeding in the proper court to determine the legality and validity of the proceedings had concerning the organization of the district, and the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds by the district thereafter, and to have such proceedings, if found regular and sufficient, approved and confirmed; that in such proceeding all of the proceedings had in the organization of the district and the issuance of bonds were approved and confirmed by the decree of the court; and that the appellants are now estopped to question the sufficiency of such proceedings or the sufficiency of the confirmatory decree. The reply admits the facts alleged concerning the confirmatory proceedings, but questions their legal effect. The trial judge ruled against the contention of the appellants to the effect that the board of county commissioners were without jurisdiction to include their lands within the boundaries of the irrigation district, and held that the decree in the confirmatory proceedings was conclusive of every other question suggested by them in their complaint, holding the proceeding regular and to have been had upon sufficient notice. The appellants take issue with the conclusions of the trial judge, and we shall notice their contentions in the order in which they present them.

The act relating to the organization and government of irrigation districts (Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 6416-6418) provides that whenever 50 or a majority of holders of title or evidence of title holding land susceptible of one mode of irrigation from a common source, and by the same system of works, desire to provide for irrigating their lands, they may organize an irrigation district under the provisions of the act. The method provided for organization is by petition. It is provided that the holders of title or evidence of title to such lands shall present a petition to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the lands, or the greater part of them, are situated, signed by the required number of holders of title or evidence of title, which petition shall set forth and particularly describe the boundaries of the proposed district, and shall pray that a district be formed under the provisions of the act. The petition shall be presented at a regular meeting of the board of county commissioners, and shall be published at least two weeks before the time it is presented, together with a notice stating the time of the meeting in a newspaper printed and published in the county where the petition is to be presented. It is further provided that, when the petition is presented to the board of county commissioners, the board shall hear the same, and may adjourn such hearing from time to time not exceeding four weeks in all, and on the final hearing may make such changes in the proposed boundaries of the district as they may find proper, and shall establish and define such boundaries, but shall not modify the boundaries proposed in the petition for the district so as to exempt any land which is susceptible of irrigation from the system of works applicable to the other lands in the proposed district, 'nor shall any lands which will not, in the judgment of said board, be benefited by irrigation by said system, or which have a sufficient water supply for irrigation from any source, be included within such district.' After forming the boundaries of the district the board of county commissioners are required to submit the question of organization to the electors residing within the proposed district holding title or evidence of title to land in such district, when, if the vote be favorable, they shall be an order entered on their minutes declare such territory organized as an irrigation district, under the name and style designated in the petition. The appellants allege in their complaint that their lands, while within the boundaries of the proposed district, have a sufficient water supply from a source different from that applicable to the other lands within the proposed district, and are now, and were at the time the district was organized, being irrigated from such source; and their contention is that, owing to the clause of the statute we have quoted, the board of county commissioners were without jurisdiction to include them within the boundaries of the proposed irrigation district, and hence any order they may have made to that effect, and any judgment of a court confirming such order, is void and of no effect. The argument is that the phrase 'in the judgment of said board,' qualifies only that part of the sentence which relates to land that will not be benefited by irrigation, empowering the board to determine the status of such lands only, but leaving them without power to pass upon the status of lands claimed by its owners to have a sufficient water supply for irrigation from a source other than that of the proposed irrigation district.

But we cannot accept this as a proper construction of the statute. Were the statute silent in its other parts with reference to the powers of the board of county commissioners to examine and determine the character of the lands that may be included in an irrigation district, we think it at least a debatable question whether the qualifying phrase should be given the effect contended for by the appellants, but other portions of the act make it clear that no such effect was intended. It will be remembered that the petition presented to the board of county commissioners asking for the formation of the district must set forth the proposed boundaries of the district and that the board shall 'hear the petition' and shall make such changes in the proposed boundaries as they may find to be proper by excluding lands of a certain class and condition and including other lands improperly omitted. Necessarily, therefore, the board must determine the status of all lands sought to be included within the district, for otherwise they could not perform the duty of excluding included lands of a given status and of including excluded lands of another. And having such power the order of the board must, if duly and regularly entered, be final and conclusive upon all the world, unless set aside or annulled by a court in some revisory or correctory proceeding appointed by law for reviewing such orders.

The rule contended for by the appellants would practically render the statute inoperative. If it be true that the board is without power to determine whether lands claimed to be irrigable from a source other than that of the proposed district are or are not of the character contended for, but may be excluded from any district in which they may be included by a court which differs with the board on its findings of fact, then clearly there is no stability to the district's...