Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Brose

• Decision Date: 25 November 1905
• Citation: 83 P. 499,11 Idaho 474
• Parties: NAMPA AND MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. BROSE
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

83 P. 499

11 Idaho 474

NAMPA AND MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. BROSE

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 25, 1905

IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAW-TITLE TO ACT-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-CONFIRMATION OF ORGANIZATION OF DISTRICT-CONFIRMATION OF BONDS-NOTICE OF HEARING-PUBLICATION THEREOF-CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE-JURISDICTION-TOWNS AND VILLAGES-WAIVER OF RIGHT TO RECEIVE WATER-CONSTRUCTION-FINDINGS OF COURT.

1. The title to an act entitled, "An act relating to irrigation districts and to provide for the organization thereof, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes and for other and similar purposes," held not repugnant to the provisions of section 16, article 3 of the state constitution.

2. Said act is not repugnant to any of the provisions of our state constitution.

3. Under the provisions of said act, held tat the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District is a legally organized and existing irrigation district under the provisions of said act.

4. Under the provisions of said act, the board of directors of an irrigation district may commence a proceeding like the one at bar, in and by which the proceedings of the board and of said district providing for and authorizing the issue and sale of the bonds of said district may be judicially examined, approved and confirmed, whether said bonds or any of them have been sold at the time of the commencement of such proceedings or not.

5. That all of the provisions of said act concerning the submission of the question of bonding said district for the sum of $583,505 to the legal voters of said district have been substantially complied with, and that said bonds have been legally voted and when issued will be valid bonds against said district.

6. Under the provisions of said act the court is empowered and given jurisdiction upon the hearing of such proceedings to examine and determine the legality and validity of, and approve and confirm each and all of the proceedings for the organization of such district under the provisions of said act, from and including the petition for the organization of the district, and all other proceedings which may affect the legality or validity of such bonds and the order for the sale thereof.

7. Notice of the hearing for confirmation may be by posting and publication as provided in said act.

8. When the lots and lands within a town or village will be benefited by irrigation under the system proposed for such district such towns and villages may be included within an irrigation district.

9. While said act contemplates a general plan for the purchase or construction of the necessary irrigation canals and works for the purpose for which such irrigation district is organized, a land owner within said district may, with the consent of the district, waive his right to water from such district where it appears that no one residing within the district is injured or prejudiced thereby. In such a case no part of the bond issue can be apportioned to the land whose owner has agreed with the district to waive all claims against it for water.

10. In such proceedings, the court must disregard any error irregularity or omission which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties to such proceedings.

11. Held, the findings of the court are fully sustained by the evidence.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of Ada County. Honorable George H Stewart, Judge.

Proceedings to determine the validity of the organization of the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, and the validity and legality of a certain bond issue, and for confirmation of all proceedings connected therewith. Judgment for plaintiff and respondent. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Hawley, Puckett & Hawley, for Appellant.

A proceeding to have reviewed and confirmed by the district court the organization of an irrigation district is bar to any further judicial inquiry into such organization as will affect a bond issue based thereon. (Modesto Irr. Dist. v. Tregea, 88 Cal. 334, 23 P. 237; Crall v. Board of Directors of Poso Irr. Dist., 87 Cal. 140, 26 P. 797.)

Hugh E. McElroy and Wood & Wilson, for Respondent.

Statutes analogous to the act in Idaho providing for the formation of irrigation districts have been held constitutional in California. (Turlock Irr. Dist. v. Williams, 76 Cal. 360, 372, 18 P. 379; Crall v. Board of Directors of Poso Irr. Dist., 87 Cal. 140, 26 P. 797; Modesto Irr. Dist. v. Tregea, 88 Cal. 334, 26 P. 237.)

SULLIVAN, J. Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion. SULLIVAN, J.

This is a proceeding instituted in pursuance of an act approved March 9, 1903 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 150), for the purpose of obtaining judicial confirmation of the organization of the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, located in Ada and Canyon counties, and the confirmation of all the proceedings of the board of directors, whereby the voters of said irrigation district, on the twenty-sixth day of August, 1905, by their votes authorized said board of directors to issue and sell the bonds of said district to the amount of $ 583,505, for the purchase and enlargement of what is known as the Ridenbaugh canal system in said counties.

Default was entered against all of the parties interested as defendants, except the appellant, R. C. Brose, who appeared and demurred generally to the petition, which demurrer was overruled by the court, and no answer being filed, default was entered accordingly. Thereupon, proofs satisfactory to the court were made and judgment was entered as prayed for. This appeal is from the judgment.

The district irrigation law under which this proceeding is instituted is entitled, "An act relating to irrigation districts, and to provide for the organization thereof, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes, and for other and similar purposes." Said act, so far as the questions in this case are concerned, is substantially the same as what is known in the state of California as the Wright district irrigation law, with the acts amendatory and confirmatory thereof.

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the title to the district irrigation act under consideration embraces more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith, and for that reason is repugnant to section 16 of article 3 of the state constitution. It is sufficient to say that the title above quoted does not embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith.

In referring to the title of the irrigation law of this state, approved March 6, 1899, which is substantially the same as the title now under consideration, this court said in Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. Rep. 201, 68 P. 295, that however numerous the provisions of an act may be, if they can by fair intendment be considered as falling within the subject matter legislated upon in such act, or necessary as ends and means to the attainment of such object, the act will not be in conflict with said constitutional provisions. Said act has but one general subject, object or purpose, and all of the provisions of said act are germane to the general objects and purposes of the act. Said title does not embrace more than one subject, and matters properly connected therewith.

The constitutionality of said act is raised. So far as that is concerned, this court held in Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. Rep. 201, 68 P. 295, that the district irrigation law then in force was constitutional, and the act under consideration is a re-enactment of that law with slight alterations and amendments. The district irrigation law under consideration is substantially the same as the Wright law of California, with its amendments, and the act known as the confirmation act, approved March 16, 1889. In fact, the irrigation act under consideration was adopted from California, and prior to its adoption by this state, the supreme court of California had repeatedly held that law to be constitutional. The Wright law has been attacked from nearly every possible point of view, and the supreme court of that state has without deviation held it constitutional. (See Kinney on Irrigation, sec. 390.)

We hold that the district irrigation law of this state is not repugnant to any of the provisions of our state constitution.

The act under consideration provides, inter alia, for the organization of irrigation districts, and for the adoption and carrying out of plans for the irrigation of the land embraced within such districts. The first section of the act provides that "whenever fifty or a majority of the holders of title, or evidences of title, to lands susceptible of one mode of irrigation from a common source and by the same system of works, desire to provide for the irrigation of the same, they may propose the organization of an irrigation district under the provisions of this act, and, when so organized such district shall have the powers conferred or that may be hereafter conferred by law, upon such irrigation districts." Said section further provides that such persons must hold title, or evidence of title, to at least one-fourth part of the total area of land in the proposed district, which will be assessable for the purposes of the district under the operation of said act, and makes the equalized county assessment-roll next preceding the presentation of a petition for the organization of such district, sufficient evidence of title for the purposes of said act.

The second section provides that a petition shall be presented to the...