McLean v. Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1926
• Docket Number: 2596.
• Parties: McLEAN et al. v. TRUCKEE-CARSON IRR. DIST. CENTRAL PAC. RY. CO. v. SAME.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

245 P. 285

49 Nev. 278

McLEAN et al. v. TRUCKEE-CARSON IRR. DIST.

CENTRAL PAC. RY. CO. v. SAME.

No. 2596.

Supreme Court of Nevada

April 5, 1926

Appeal from District Court, Churchill County; C.J. McFadden, Judge.

Special proceeding on petition of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, opposed by Annie McLean and others and the Central Pacific Railway Company. Decree was rendered, confirming the organization of the district and annexation of certain land and confirming and approving a proposed contract of the district with the United States government to construct a drainage system, and apportionment of benefits to accrue thereunder, and adjudging said contract valid. From orders denying the respective motions for a new trial, Annie McLean and others and the Central Pacific Railway Company separately appeal. Affirmed.which will accrue, from construction.

McCarran & Mashburn and William Kearney, all of Reno, for appellants McLean and others.

Brown & Belford and W. M. Kennedy, all of Reno, for appellant Central Pac. Ry. Co.

Cooke French & Stoddard, of Reno, for respondent.

SANDERS J.

The Truckee-Carson irrigation district was formed on a federal reclamation project, known as, and called, "Newlands project," which was among those first selected and authorized under the Act of Congress of June 17, 1902 commonly known as "the Reclamation Act," and frequently referred to as the Newlands Act, because sponsored by the late United States Senator Newlands of Nevada. 32 Stat. L. 388 (U. S. Comp. St. § 4700 et seq.).

The Truckee-Carson irrigation district includes within its boundaries about 66,000 acres of irrigable land lying under the Newlands project, approximately 45,000 acres of which are now under irrigation from the government's irrigation works-the Truckee canal and the Lahontan reservoir.

This is a special proceeding brought on petition of the Truckee-Carson irrigation district, seeking the examination, approval, and confirmation of the proceedings for the organization of said district; also for the confirmation and approval of its proceedings relative to the annexation of certain lands to the district; also for the confirmation and approval of the proceedings relative to a proposed contract by the district with the government of the United States for the construction by the government of a general drainage system within the district; and also for the confirmation and approval of apportionment of benefits to accrue from the construction of said drainage works.

The immense record involves two appeals: One, the appeal of Annie McLean and others; the other, that of the Central Pacific Railway Company, a corporation. The appeals involve the same proceedings. They were argued together and submitted for decision, with the request from the attorneys for the district for a speedy decision because of the great public importance of the case and the vast pecuniary interest dependent upon the result. The importance of the case, both with reference to the interesting legal questions and principles involved, and the vast economic and pecuniary interest dependent upon the result, demand the most mature and deliberate consideration of this court. The writer feels that the sensible minded will understand and appreciate that he has been unable to keep abreast with the business of the court and render an opinion within the time deemed reasonable by some of the interested parties. Furthermore, the court is burdened with a record consisting of more than 3,000 pages of testimony, expert and nonexpert, and much documentary evidence, all involving research, study, and careful investigation. There is based upon the record a separate volume of 470 assignments of error, which refer to the record in such way as necessitated a review of practically all the evidence. There have been injected into the case the long-standing differences and animosities between the water users under the Newlands project and the United States Reclamation Service, which do not concern this court in the least, but which seem to have been brought into the case to emphasize the position taken by certain protestants that the assessment against their lands is illegal, unfair, and without equity.

On or before the date fixed for the hearing of the petition for confirmation at least 145 interested persons answered the petition, and by their answers sought to have their lands excluded from the district and to enjoin the district from making any apportionment of benefits or assessments of costs affecting their property for the construction of a general drainage system under a proposed contract between the district and the government of the United States. After a full hearing upon the pleadings and evidence, the trial judge, Hon. C.J. McFadden of the Ninth district, rendered a decree, which decree confirms respectively: (1) The organization of the Truckee-Carson irrigation district in Churchill and Lyon counties, Nev.; (2) the annexation to said district of 12,672.6 acres of land lying under the Newlands project; (3) the confirmation and approval of a proposed contract of the district with the United States government to construct a drainage system for the district at a cost not to exceed $700,000; (4) the confirmation and approval of the apportionment of benefits to accrue to each tract or legal subdivision of irrigable land within the district from the construction of said proposed drainage system; and (5) adjudging said proposed contract to be valid and such as the board of directors of the district were authorized to enter into. The two appeals are prosecuted from orders denying the respective motions of protestants for a new trial based upon the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the decision of the court, and that the decision is against law.

We shall consider first the appeal of Annie McLean and others, and dispose of the appeal of the Central Pacific Railway Company in the concluding portion of this necessarily lengthy opinion.

The applicable state law is to be found in the Revised Laws of Nevada 1912 (sections 4723 to 4791, inclusive). This was amended by Acts 1915, c. 278, p. 434, and by Acts 1917, c. 150, p. 255. In 1919 the Legislature enacted a complete substitute irrigation district law in chapter 64, pp. 84 to 115. This act made many changes in the previous law, most of which, however, are of a minor character.

The Truckee-Carson irrigation district was organized in November, 1918, under the provisions of the prior law and amendments, but the district did not take steps to have its organization confirmed by court order, as required by the statute. Aside from the proceedings had for the formation of the district, all its acts and proceedings here involved were had in attempted compliance with the provisions contained in the substituted act of 1919.

The applicable federal law is to be found in the Reclamation Act, supra; the Act of Congress of February 21, 1911, known as the "Warren Act" (36 Stat. L. 925, § 2 [U. S. Comp. St. § 4739]), and the Act of Congress of August 13, 1914, known as the "Reclamation Extension Act" (38 Stat. L. 686 [U. S. Comp. St. § 4713a et seq.]).

To avoid prolixity, we have assembled the 470 assignments of error under the main headings: (1) The power of the state and the United States to contract for purposes of co-operation under the state and federal laws for drainage construction; (2) the legality of the assessment, and the fairness and equity in the apportionment of benefits to accrue to protestants' lands from the construction of the proposed drainage system; (3) the jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the proceeding for confirmation of the organization of said district and other matters in connection therewith.

Appellants in their answer assert that the court below was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter, because the Nevada Irrigation District Act of 1919 is unconstitutional. Courts now dispose of this question with the statement that the constitutionality of irrigation district laws has been so thoroughly and universally established that the subject need not be elaborated. The several portions of the act here attacked were upheld as being constitutional. In re Walker River Irrigation District, 195 P. 327, 44 Nev. 321. Counsel deplore that as a result of that decision Nevada stands alone in holding that an irrigation district is not a municipal corporation in a strict sense, but a public corporation for municipal purposes; thereby doing violence to our constitutional provisions relative to elections and property qualification of voters in irrigation districts. It is probable that Idaho, and not Nevada, stands alone among the irrigation district states as to the applicability of constitutional provisions relative to elections held by irrigation districts. For counsels' information we take the liberty of citing Handbook of Irrigation District Laws (King & Burr), p. 20. We again declare the Nevada Irrigation District Act of 1919 constitutional.

It is contended that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudging the Truckee-Carson irrigation district to be a legally organized and constituted irrigation district because the proceedings for its formation were not had in compliance with the statute. We have reviewed the 30 alleged defects in the organization proceedings, and conclude with the trial court that the proceedings were in all respects in substantial compliance with the statute. Therefore, we see no necessity for incumbering this opinion with answers to extended technical arguments which in many respects misconstrue the applicable law. In one of the cases cited by counsel it is declared that, in so far as proceedings for the organization are concerned, a...