In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 24 February 1943
• Docket Number: 6972
• Citation: 64 Idaho 538,136 P.2d 461
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WILDER IRRIGATION DISTRICT for the Examination, Approval and Confirmation of its proceedings for the execution of that proposed contract "Concerning Construction of Anderson Ranch Reservoir and Related Matters" between the United States of America and the Wilder Irrigation District, Approved by the Secretary of the Interior January 13th, 1941, Respondent, v. J. M. JORGENSEN, LEWIS E. GRIFFITHS and CHARLES P. KAUFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

136 P.2d 461

64 Idaho 538

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WILDER IRRIGATION DISTRICT for the Examination, Approval and Confirmation of its proceedings for the execution of that proposed contract "Concerning Construction of Anderson Ranch Reservoir and Related Matters" between the United States of America and the Wilder Irrigation District, Approved by the Secretary of the Interior January 13th, 1941, Respondent, v. J. M. JORGENSEN, LEWIS E. GRIFFITHS and CHARLES P. KAUFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Appellants

No. 6972

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 24, 1943

Rehearing denied May 3, 1943.

WATER AND WATER COURSES-IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-CONTRACTS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SUBSTITUTION OF WATER.

1. A contract between an irrigation district and the United States for the construction and operation of works necessary to provide increased water was not "ultra vires" on ground that it delegated the management of system out of the hands of the district to a board of control, where statute authorized directors to enter into contract for water supply and to do any and every lawful act necessary to obtain sufficient water, and the board of control was chosen from the directors of districts which organized the contracting district. (I.C.A., secs. 42-304, 42-1801, 42-1803, 42-1804.)

2. That water has been decreed for the irrigation of lands and become appurtenant thereto does not for that reason alone prevent a substitution or exchange of water.

3. An irrigation district has the power to enter into a contract with the United States for the construction of works necessary to provide increased water and to provide for the substitution at some future time of an equal amount of water from other sources where such substitution would not work an injury to the rights of water users. (I.C.A., secs. 42-304, 42-1801, 42-1803, 42-1804.)

Rehearing denied May 3, 1943.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Canyon. Honorable A. O. Sutton, District Judge.

Petition for the confirmation of proceedings had and taken by the Wilder Irrigation District to authorize it to enter into a contract with the United States of America for a 33 71/100 per cent interest in stored waters of "Anderson Ranch Reservoir." Judgment for petitioner. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

J. B Eldridge for appellants.

The court erred in holding and deciding that the Irrigation District had power and authority to enter into said contract so confirmed authorizing the Board of Control to formulate by-laws and to prescribe the duties of the Board of Control under which said district was and is to be operated. ( Stimson v. Alessandro Irrigation Dist., 67 P. 496; Secs. 42-201 to 42-204, inclusive; Weil v. Defenbach, 36 Idaho 37; Welch v. Morris, 49 Idaho 781; Wright v. Atwood, 33 Idaho 455; Cooper Mrg. Co. v. Ferguson, 28 Law Ed. 1137; Miller v. Ammon, 36 Law Ed. 759; Williams v. Sherman, 36 Idaho 494; Jensen v. Gooch, 36 Idaho 457; McQuillin Municipal Corporations, Vol. 1, Secs. 393-394, p. 1093 to 1099, inclusive.)

The court erred in holding and deciding that paragraph 43 of the contract authorizing and empowering the Secretary of the Interior to substitute Payette and Salmon River water rights for the old water rights belonging to the individual settlers, and appurtenant to their lands, without compensation and without any process of law other than the holding of an election and the making of the contract, against the wish and will of the owners of said lands, protestants herein. (Sec. 4, Art. 5, Idaho Constitution, 41-101, I. C. A.; Daniels v. Adair, 38 Idaho 130; Bennett v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co., 27 Idaho 643; Carey Lake Reservoir District v. Strunk, 38 Idaho 332; Welterding v. Green, 4 Idaho 773; Niday v. Barker, 16 Idaho 73.)

J. M. Thompson, Walter Griffiths, W. B. Davidson, and B. E. Stoutemeyer for respondent.

The laws of the State of Idaho grant to an irrigation district organized under the laws of the State of Idaho broad powers within which an irrigation district may contract with the United States of America. These powers are provided in Chap. 18, under the head, "Cooperation with Federal Government," Vol. 2, p. 1568, of the Idaho Code Annotated (1932), and embrace Secs. 42-1801 to 42-1834, inclusive. All of the sections referred to are important, but the ones especially to which we desire to call the court's attention at this point are Secs. 42-1803 and 42-1804.

The Board of Control is a proper means of operating and maintaining the canal system which is necessary in order to provide water for the district lands. If the several districts are to participate in the management of the irrigation system which serves them all, the Board of Control is also a necessary means to that end. It therefore comes within the scope of Chief Justice Marshall's famous opinion in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579, in which the Chief Justice said:

"The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. It can never be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution by withholding the most appropriate means."

"It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. "

"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

The same rule of construction applies to the state statute, and when the legislature provided, in Sec. 42-304, I. C. A.:

"The board of directors of an irrigation district organized under the laws of the State of Idaho may * * * do any and every lawful act necessary to be done that sufficient water may be furnished to the lands in the district for irrigation purposes" the legislature authorized the district to employ all proper and necessary means to accomplish the authorized purpose.

In this case the necessary means is a contract with the government which includes the Board of Control provision.

In the case of Bissett v. Pioneer Irrigation District, 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461, this court construed the section of the Idaho statutes now appearing as Sec. 42-304, I. C. A.

HOLDEN, C.J. AILSHIE, J., KOELSCH, D.J., (Concurring), BUDGE, J. (Concurring specially.) GIVENS, J. (Dissenting.)

OPINION

HOLDEN, C.J.

February 13, 1906, a contract was entered into between the Payette-Boise Waters Users Association and the United States for the construction of a Federal Reclamation Project, known as the Boise project. Some years thereafter, to-wit, December 19, 1925, the Wilder Irrigation District was organized. Shortly thereafter, April 6, 1926, a contract was entered into between the United States and the District, subject to later authorization by the electors of the District, as well as to later judicial confirmation, for the acquisition of the Boise Project by the payment of the costs to the United States of the construction of that project, as in the last mentioned contract provided. Following the approval of the contract by the electors of the district, a confirmatory decree was entered April 6, 1926.

The 1926 contract established a Board of Control [nine in number] to act as the operating agent of the main canal of the Arrowrock Division of the Boise Project, through which the New York Canal [now the New York Irrigation District], Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, Wilder Irrigation District and Big Bend Irrigation District [in Oregon] receive water. Members of the Board of Control were and are elected by the Boards of Directors of the respective districts from among their own members, and representation on the Board of Control was fixed on an acreage basis. Under the terms of the contract involved in this suit, the provisions of the 1926 contract providing for a Board of Control are made applicable insofar as the control and distribution of water are concerned.

It was found, in the course of time, the water supply provided under the terms of the contract between the United States and the District, dated April 6, 1926, was not sufficient for the proper irrigation and reclamation of the lands within the district. That led the district to take steps to obtain additional water and to that end, the district entered into another contract with the United States, dated January 13 1941, also subject to later authorization by the electors of the district, for 33 71/100 per cent of water to be stored in the Anderson Ranch Reservoir to be constructed by the United States. This second contract was likewise approved by the electors. Thereafter, to-wit, May 6, 1941, a petition, in the usual form, was filed in the District Court of Canyon County praying that "each and all of the proceedings had and taken by the Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District, for and in connection with the special election held in said District on April 7th, 1941, in the authorization of the execution of that approved contract 'concerning the construction of Anderson Ranch Reservoir and related matters', between the United States of America and said Wilder Irrigation District, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, January 13th, 1941, and approved and ordered filed by said District's Board of Directors, February 4th, 1941, be examined, approved and confirmed by this court, and that the legality and validity of the said contract be determined and established by decree of this...