Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Pioneer Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 26 May 1909
• Citation: 16 Idaho 578,102 P. 904
• Parties: OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

102 P. 904

16 Idaho 578

OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 26, 1909

IRRIGATION DISTRICT-ORGANIZATION-HEARING-ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS-JUDGMENT CONFIRMING DISTRICT-RES ADJUDICATA-ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS-DESCRIPTION OF LAND.

1. The statute of this state authorizes the board of county commissioners to include within the boundaries of an irrigation district all lands which in their natural state would be benefited by irrigation and are susceptible of irrigation by one system; and this is true regardless of the question as to what particular use is being made of any particular tract or piece of land at the time the district is organized.

2. Where a railroad corporation owns right of way and station grounds within the boundaries of a proposed irrigation district, and quietly sits by and makes no objection or protest to the or- ganization of such district, or the confirmation of the same, such railroad company is concluded by the action of the board of county commissioners in including such right of way and station grounds within the district, and the judgment of the district court confirming such district, and cannot attack the jurisdiction of the district to assess such lands on the ground that the same were not benefited, in a collateral proceeding.

3. Whether the right of way and station grounds of a railroad company will be benefited by a system of irrigation works within an irrigation district is committed to the judgment of the board of county commissioners; and when such board has determined that such land will be benefited and includes such land within the boundaries of such district, the action of such board is final and conclusive against a collateral attack.

4. The mere fact that the railroad company for the time being is using its lands for right of way and depot purposes is not a reason why such lands will not be benefited by a system of irrigation works controlled by an irrigation district, as the question of benefits is to be determined with reference to the natural state and condition of the land, and not with reference to the use being made of such land.

5. In determining whether lands will be benefited by a system of irrigation works, the board of county commissioners are not limited to lands which will be used for agricultural purposes or upon which water will be beneficially used or to lands devoted to any particular use; but the board is empowered and given jurisdiction to determine whether all lands within the district will be benefited without reference to the use to which the same will be put.

6. Section 2 of the Laws of 1901, page 191, requires the petition for the organization of an irrigation district to describe the boundaries of such district, but does not require the petition to contain a specific and accurate description of each tract or legal subdivision of land within the district.

7. Such statute does not require that the notice given of the presentation of the petition or the notice of the time when the same will be heard, contain a description of the different tracts or legal subdivisions within the boundaries of the proposed district.

8. Section 11 of the act of March 18, 1901 (Laws of 1901, p 191) requires the board to examine all tracts and legal subdivisions within the boundaries of the district and apportion the benefits according to their judgment.

9. This provision of the statute, which requires the board to examine each particular legal subdivision or tract within the district and apportion the benefits, does not require the board, in designating the benefits, to particularly and specifically describe each tract or fractional part of such legal subdivision according to the separate ownership thereof, where the benefits accruing to all parts of such legal subdivision are the same.

10. If however, in assessing the benefits the board determine that any part or tract less than a legal subdivision be benefited differently from the remainder or any other part or tract then the board is required to designate and describe the benefit to such particular tract or fractional part.

11. The benefits fixed by the board are laid against the land, and the proceeding is a proceeding in rem and the benefits have reference to the land; and where the board, in preparing a list of the lands against which benefits are laid, designate upon such list the legal subdivisions across which the right of way of a railroad company passes and designate the rate per acre apportioned to each legal subdivision, it is a substantial compliance with the statute, and is not void because the right of way is not particularly and separately described.

12. The list thus prepared is notice to the railway company of the benefits assessed against each legal subdivision, of which its right of way is a part; and where the list has been thus prepared, and no objection is made by the company on account of a defective description or want of description at the time of the hearing of the confirmation of said district, the owner of such property is concluded in a collateral attack by the judgment.

13. Section 18, Laws of 1899, page 417, empowers the district court upon the hearing for confirmation to determine the legality and regularity of all of the proceedings taken with reference to the organization of said district and by such district up to the time the judgment of confirmation is rendered, including all proceedings affecting the legality or validity of the bonds issued by said district, and the apportionment of costs and the list of such apportionment and every person interested in said district is given an opportunity to appear and contest the same.

14. Section 11 of the act of March 18, 1901, amending the Laws of 1899, expressly provides "That the proceedings of said board of directors in making such apportionment of cost and the said list of such apportionment shall be included, with other features of the organization of such district which are subject to judicial examination and confirmation as provided in sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of this act."

15. The fact that the board of directors, in assessing benefits to lands within an irrigation district, fail to list the lands according to each separate ownership, but do list the same according to each legal subdivision, does not show that the board did not intend to assess benefits to all the lands within the legal subdivision.

16. The statute requires the board to assess benefits against each legal subdivision or tract within the district; and where less than a legal subdivision is benefited in a different degree or amount than the remainder of the legal subdivision or tract, then the board is required to fix and determine the benefits accruing to such particular tract; but where the entire legal subdivision or tract is benefited equally, then the board may lay the assessment against the legal subdivision, and thus include the smaller or fractional parts thereof.

17. The fact that the officials of an irrigation district neglect to assess the right of way and station grounds of a railroad company for certain years is not a reason why such right of way and station grounds are not subject to assessment by said district; and the company cannot defeat a future assessment by reason of the fact that its property was not assessed for any particular year or years prior to the assessment made.

18. The fact that the statute makes no provision for notice to the land owner that on a particular day the board of directors will assess benefits to the lands within the district will not render such statute unconstitutional where the statute does provide for notice to be given of the proceedings to organize such district and notice of the hearing for the confirmation of the organization and proceedings of such district, at which hearing the court is required to examine all the proceedings involved in the organization of such district, including the assessment of benefits.

19. If the record show that the board of directors, in levying an assessment for maintenance and to pay the bonded indebtedness of an irrigation district, substantially complied with the statute, and the assessment-roll is made up in substantial compliance with the statute, the assessment thus levied will be upheld if the description of the property is sufficient to give the land owner notice that such property is burdened with such assessment.

20. The power and jurisdiction of the state board of equalization with reference to the assessment of railroad property has reference to assessments made for general state, county and municipal purposes, and not to assessments made for local improvements.

21. Where territory has not been included within the boundaries of an irrigation district in accordance with the laws governing the taking of territory into an irrigation district, the district has no power or jurisdiction to assess the property so included.

22. Where it appears that an irrigation district has attempted to change the boundaries of such district so as to include other territory, but has failed to give the notice required by the statute of the intention of such district to change such boundaries, and the owners of land attempted to be taken into such district have no notice of the change in boundaries and the inclusion of such land within the district, such owners are not prevented from challenging the legality of the change in the boundaries of such district until they have had their day in court.

(Syllabus by the court.)

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

An action to enjoin and restrain the defendant irrigation...