Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie

• Decision Date: 20 November 1915
• Citation: 28 Idaho 227,153 P. 425
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JAS. G. PETRIE et al., Appellants

153 P. 425

28 Idaho 227

NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JAS. G. PETRIE et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 20, 1915

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS-POWER OF DISTRICT TO CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY-POWER OF DISTRICT TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE SYSTEM - CONTRACT WITH UNITED STATES FOR ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND JOINT CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM-POWER OF DISTRICT AND SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO CONTRACT-ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS-CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS NOT ADJUDICATION AS TO BENEFITS - GOVERNMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS - LIMITATION OF USE OF WATER ON RECLAMATION PROJECT TO 160 ACRES.

1. Sec 2401, Rev. Codes, under title 14, "Irrigation Districts," authorizes special statutory proceedings which may be brought by the board of directors of an irrigation district in the district court to determine the validity of the successive steps taken under the provisions of this title for the purpose of authorizing the district to enter into a contract with the United States as provided by secs. 2397 and 2398, Rev. Codes. This proceeding is not brought for the purpose of assessing benefits to the lands within such irrigation district.

2. The authority of an irrigation district to enter into contracts with the United States to supply water for the irrigation of arid lands, or supplemental water rights, or both, within the jurisdiction of the district is provided under secs. 2397 and 2398, Rev. Codes. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344 130 P. 382, cited and followed.)

3. Boards of directors of irrigation districts are authorized upon compliance with secs. 2396-2401, Rev. Codes, to contract with the United States for the construction, conjunctively of a drainage system for the purpose of properly draining water-logged lands within the jurisdiction of such districts. (Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, supra, cited and followed.)

4. The Secretary of the Interior by an act of Congress of June 17, 1902, known as the Reclamation Act (32 Stat. L. 388, 7 Fed. Stats. Ann. 1098, U.S. Comp. Stats. (Supp. 1911), p. 662), an act of Congress of February 21, 1911, known as the Warren Act (36 Stats. L. 925), and the subsequent act of Congress passed August 13, 1914, known as the Reclamation Extension Act, is authorized to enter into a contract with an irrigation district to supply water to irrigate arid lands or to supplement water rights for lands partially irrigated within the jurisdiction of such irrigation district; and also to contract with such irrigation district for the joint construction of a proper drainage system where the water-logged condition of lands within said district is partially due to the location of a government canal and water flowing therefrom.

5. Where a contract is entered into between an irrigation district and the United States, providing, among other things, that arid lands within the jurisdiction of the irrigation district, in order to secure a full water right from a government project, shall be assessed not to exceed $75 per acre, such contract is subject to the laws of this state governing irrigation districts and to the apportionment of benefits thereunder, and the fixed charge to be assessed against the lands of any particular land owner within such irrigation district for such water right will be finally determined by the district court of the judicial district within which said irrigation district is located, as provided by secs. 2400-2403, Rev. Codes.

6. The same rule and the same procedure, as indicated in paragraph 5, is to be followed in the assessment of benefits with reference to the sale of partial water rights to supplement water rights already existing, and also with reference to the assessment of benefits incident to the construction of a drainage system within an irrigation district.

7. A judgment of the district court which confirms the proceedings of an irrigation district in entering into a contract with the United States to supply water to irrigate lands within the district, and providing for the joint construction of a drainage system, is not res judicata so far as the assessment of benefits to the lands within the district is concerned, and does not preclude statutory proceedings for such assessment.

8. The dominant purpose of our irrigation district law is to facilitate the economical and permanent reclamation of our arid lands, and it must be the constant aim of judicial construction to effectuate that purpose so far as consistent with the whole body of our law. The continued existence of an irrigation district depends upon its ability to furnish water to land already within the district. The stability and efficiency of the district as a quasi-municipal corporation also depends upon the power to construct proper drainage within its limits. In the absence of either the right to furnish an adequate water supply or construct an effective drainage system, the very purpose and object of the district would be thwarted and the growth and development of the state retarded to its serious detriment.

9. Congress has the undoubted power to restrict the right to the use of water furnished from government projects to 160 acres standing in the name of any one land owner. Having the power to dispose of the right to the use of water made available by the completion of a reclamation project, Congress is in a position to fix the terms and conditions of the use and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to perform any and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying its legislation into full force and effect. But the exercise of such power by Congress does not imply the assumption of federal authority to classify or control the assessment of benefits to lands within an irrigation district organized under the laws of this state, although such lands may also be embraced within a federal reclamation project.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, in and for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action for the examination, confirmation and approval of a contract between the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Secretary of the Interior. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment of the lower court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

J. B. Eldridge and Floyd C. White, for Appellants.

The district and the Secretary of the Interior cannot enter into a contract, against the will of an individual land owner who has less water than five-eighths of an inch per acre, acquired independently of the district on lands lying above any of the district's laterals or canals, or any other amount comprising a water right for his said lands, and assess such land owner for a water right at $ 75 per acre, and not allow credits of any kind for the water right owned by the settler, without compensating the settler for the loss of his said water right. (Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 217, 101 P. 81.)

"The due process of law enjoined by the fourteenth amendment requires compensation to be made or adequately secured to the owner of private property taken for public use under the authority of the state." (Chicago, B. & O. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 19 S.Ct. 187, 43 L.Ed. 443.)

Even if the court had jurisdiction of the United States and of the Secretary of the Interior, it could not enforce the provisions of a mere proposed contract, which may never be signed or executed. The contract referred to in sec. 2397 certainly means an executed contract and not a mere proposed form of contract. No court should render its judgment upon any question involving merely moot matters, which cannot be enforced. (Johnson v. Malloy, 74 Cal. 430, 16 P. 228; Adams v. Union R. Co., 21 R. I. 134, 42 A. 515, 44 L. R. A. 273.)

The contract proposed is an abstract question and is not a fact, and no rights can be based upon it, for it is not executed, and is only a matter of form. (Tregea v. Board of Directors of the Modesto Irr. Dist., 164 U.S. 179, 17 S.Ct. 52, 41 L.Ed. 395.)

When an issue has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, said issue is ended and determined once and for all unless set aside or modified on appeal, or unless a direct proceeding in equity has been instituted and is instituted upon equitable grounds for the purpose of setting aside said judgment or decree. See Progressive Irr. Dist. v. Anderson, 19 Idaho 504, 114 P. 16, in which this court had under consideration successive steps of confirmation contemplated by sec. 2401, Rev. Codes.

In the confirmation case of Nampa-Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 11 Idaho 474, 83 P. 499, this court explicitly ruled that the dry land owners of the district had executed contracts of waiver, and that the dry land owners would procure their water rights from the government, and that such dry land owners received no benefit from the organization and would not be assessed under the organization of the district and the confirmation thereof.

H. E. McElroy and B. E. Stoutemyer, for Respondents.

The affirmative defenses alleged in this case are immaterial, and if they have any merit should be set up in the suit to confirm the assessment of benefits, pending in the lower court.

An irrigation district has jurisdiction to purchase water rights from the government for dry lands lying within the district and to construct a drainage system. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382.)

The contract expressly refers to assessments of benefits by an irrigation district of the state, and an assessment of benefits is a creature of statute law and is made expressly subject to revision by ...