Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3967. |
| Citation | 288 F. 541 |
| Parties | NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRR. DIST. v. BOND, Project Manager, U.S. Reclamation Service (PAYETTE-BOISE WATER USERS' ASS'N, Limited, Intervener.) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1923.
Section 4 of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388 (Comp. St. Sec. 4703)), provides:
'That upon the determination by the Secretary of the Interior that any irrigation project is practicable, he may cause to be let contracts for the construction of the same, in such portions or sections as it may be practicable to construct and complete as parts of the whole project, providing the necessary funds for such portions or sections are available in the reclamation fund, and thereupon he shall give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project, and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the lands in question; also of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the said entries, and upon lands in private ownership which may be irrigated by the waters of the said irrigation project, and the number of annual installments, not exceeding ten, in which such charges shall be paid and the time when such payments shall commence.'
Section 4 of the amendatory act of August 13, 1914 (38 Stat. 687 (Comp. St. Sec. 4713d)), provides:
Section 5 of the latter act (Comp. St. Sec. 4713e) provides further:
'That in addition to the construction charge, every water-right applicant, entryman, or landowner under or upon a reclamation project shall also pay, whenever water service is available for the irrigation of his land, an operation and maintenance charge based upon the total cost of operation and maintenance of the project, or each separate unit thereof, and such charge shall be made for each acre-foot of water delivered.'
The plaintiff in this suit is an irrigation district organized under the general laws of the state of Idaho. A part of the land in the district has a water right, or partial water right, from the district, or from other private sources, while other irrigable land in the district has no such water right. The former are classed as old water-right lands, and the latter as project lands. On the 1st day of June, 1915, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the United States to provide a drainage system for the district and to procure additional water. Under the terms of this contract the government agreed to construct the drainage system at a cost of $557,000, a fixed proportion of which was charged against the old water-right lands, and the balance against the project lands of the Boise project, both within and without the district. Paragraph 12 of this contract contains the following provision:
'The project lands in the district shall pay the same operation and maintenance charge per acre as announced by the Secretary of the Interior for similar lands of the Boise project and the same shall be collected by the district for the United States and paid over by the district to the United States, and upon notices from the officer of the United States in charge of the Boise project, the district will withhold the delivery of water from such project lands in the district as are in default in the payment of said operation and maintenance charge.'
On the 15th day of February, 1921, the Secretary of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Cent. New England Ry. Co.
...115, 132, 153 N. E. 466.Galveston Electric Co. v. Galveston, 258 U. S. 388, 399, 42 S. Ct. 351, 66 L. Ed. 678;Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond (C. C. A.) 288 F. 541, 543;Fleischer v. Pelton Steel Co., 183 Wis. 451, 458, 459, 198 N. W. 444. The end sought by the commission in issuing the ......
-
York Central Railroad Co. v. Central New England Railway Co.
... ... v. Galveston, 258 U.S ... 388, 399; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond, 288 F ... 541, 543; ... ...
-
United States v. Fort Belknap Irrigation District
...* * *" 10 This was well expressed by the trial court in Nampa and Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond, D.C.1922, 283 F. 569, 571, affirmed 9 Cir., 288 F. 541: 268 U.S. 50, 45 S.Ct. 383, 69 L.Ed. 843, where the court "If in strictness we undertake to apply the narrow view advanced by the plaintiff t......
-
Penrose v. Whitacre
...does not question the soundness of the rules laid down in the Nampa case. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond, D.C., 283 F. 569; Id., 9 Cir., 288 F. 541; Id., 268 50, 45 S.Ct. 383, 69 L.Ed. 843. But the courts in that case were not dealing with such statutory provisions as §§ 49 1/2 and 14 ......