Nampa Meridian Irr Dist v. Bond

• Decision Date: 13 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 135,135
• Citation: 45 S.Ct. 383,69 L.Ed. 843,268 U.S. 50
• Parties: NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRR. DIST. v. BOND, Project Manager, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

268 U.S. 50

45 S.Ct. 383

69 L.Ed. 843

NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRR. DIST.

v BOND, Project Manager, et al.

No. 135.

Argued March 6, 1925.

Decided April 13, 1925.

Messrs. H. E. McElroy, of Boise, Idaho, Will R. King, of Portland, Or., and Fremont Wood, of Boise, Idaho, for appellant.

Mr. W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Bond.

Mr. J. B. Eldridge, of Boise, Idaho, for appellee Payette-Boise Water Users' Ass'n, Limited.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant is an irrigation district organized as a public corporation under the laws of Idaho. In 1915, its supply of water being insufficient to irrigate the lands of all its members, it entered into a contract with the United States, at that time engaged in the construction of the Boise irrigation project, for water to irrigate the unsupplied lands and for the construction of a drainage system within the district. The district undertook to represent these lands in their relations to the government and collect from their owners and pay over to the government construction installments and operation and maintenance charges. The drainage system was constructed in accordance with the contract and the cost thereof, after deducting the amount chargeable to the old water right non-project lands within the district, was paid by the United States as a construction expense and, with other costs of construction, was charged ratably against all the project lands, being 40,000 acres within and 100,000 acres outside the district. After the construction cost, including this drainage, had been fixed by the government, it became necessary to drain project lands outside the district because they were being ruined for agricultural uses by the steadily rising ground level of seepage water due directly to the operation of the irrigation system. Thereupon the Secretary of the Interior authorized the construction of a drainage system for these lands, the cost to be charged to operation and maintenance, and to be borne ratably by all the water users upon project lands both within and without the district.

Appellant contended that this expenditure was not properly chargeable to operation and maintenance, but was an additional charge for construction, which appellant could not be required to collect and pay over under section 4 of the Reclamation Extension Act of August 13, 1914, c. 247, 38 Stat. 686, 687 (Comp. St. § 4713d), which provides that no increase in construction charges shall be made after the same have been fixed, except by agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a majority of the water right applicants and entrymen to be affected thereby. It was insisted, further, that appellant would be precluded by state law from collecting the charges from owners of non-project lands, because they were not benefited. The government having threatened that, unless the charges were paid, it would shut off the supply of water from the project lands within the district, appellant brought this suit to enjoin such action. The federal District Court dismissed the bill (283 F. 569), and its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (288 F. 541). Both courts held that the cost was a proper charge as an operating expense, and that the project lands in the district were liable for their proportionate part.

The contract with the district, among other things, provides:

'The project lands in the district shall pay the same operation and maintenance charge per acre as announced by the...