Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Minidoka Irrigation District
| Decision Date | 31 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 5250 |
| Citation | 283 P. 614,48 Idaho 584 |
| Parties | OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. MINIDOKA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Corporation, Respondent |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
WATERS AND WATERCOURSES-MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS-RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
Where neither when irrigation district contracted with Secretary of Interior under Act Cong. June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof to take over federal government's reclamation project, nor at any time thereafter, were there any water rights under said project appurtenant to railroad right of way or any water available therefor, railroad was not chargeable with maintenance assessment under C. S., sec. 4489, and Act Cong. Aug. 13 1914, chap. 247, sec. 5, 38 Stat. 687 (43 U.S. C. A., secs 492, 499), restricting such assessments among other conditions precedent, to whenever water service is available for the irrigation of owner's or entryman's lands, C S., sec. 4486, limiting levying of assessments in such cases to method prescribed in secs. 4466-4492, not secs. 4313-4446.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Minidoka County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.
Action to recover taxes paid under protest. Judgment for defendant. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded with instructions. Costs awarded to appellants.
Geo. H. Smith, H. B. Thompson and J. H. McEvers, for Appellant.
Where there are no direct benefits there can be no assessments. A general benefit will not sustain an assessment.
It is established by the evidence that at the time the district was organized in 1913 and 1914 most of the land included within the Minidoka Irrigation District was settled and most of it was under cultivation, and the land was doubtless worth more at that time than it is to-day. The railroad company's right of way was not and never has been under cultivation. In its natural state it was arid and dry. No water right has ever attached to the land. It has been dedicated to a restricted and limited use. There is no water available for use upon the land and there never has been any water delivered thereto. From this it is manifest that the land could not possibly have received a direct benefit.
It is unquestionably the settled law of this state that special assessments for improvement purposes are not justified unless benefits actually accrue to the land. (Booth v. Groves, 43 Idaho 703, 255 P. 638; In re Drainage District No. 3, Ada County, 43 Idaho 803, 255 P. 411; Colburn v. Wilson, 24 Idaho 94, 132 P. 579; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 37 Idaho 45, 223 P. 531; Myles Salt Co. v. Board of Commrs., 239 U.S. 478, 479, 36 S.Ct. 204, 60 L.Ed. 392; Thomas v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 261 U.S. 481, 43 S.Ct. 440, 67 L.Ed. 758; Browning v. Hooper, 269 U.S. 396, 46 S.Ct. 141, 70 L.Ed. 330.)
S. T. Lowe and H. V. Creason, for Respondent.
Under the laws of the United States and of the state of Idaho, all lands susceptible of irrigation, included within an irrigation district, are required to be assessed for operation and maintenance charges whenever water service is available for the irrigation of the same.
The fact that the plaintiff had never made any application for water or that the use to which the lands were applied did not require water, and therefore water was not available for the irrigation of said lands, does not relieve the lands from liability for assessment for operation and maintenance charges, if, and when, water service is available. (Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 578, 102 P. 904; Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 235, 101 P. 87; American Falls Reservoir Dist. v. Thrall, 39 Idaho 105, 112, 228 P. 236, 248.)
To justify an assessment upon property, the benefit from the improvement need not be a direct one. (Branson v. Bush, 251 U.S. 182, 40 S.Ct. 113, 64 L.Ed. 215; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond, supra; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., supra; Phillip Wagner, Inc., v. Leser, supra; Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., supra; Haga v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., supra.)
June 3, 1905, the Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad Company completed the construction of a railroad through the territory involved herein. Since October 31, 1910, appellant has by purchase through mesne conveyances been the owner of said right of way and trackage, its use of the lands embraced in the right of way being restricted by act of Congress to railroad uses.
During 1907 the U.S. Reclamation Service placed the territory through which the portion of appellant's right of way involved herein extends, under irrigation. March 6, 1916, the Secretary of the Interior issued an order which provided so far as material here that "rights of way for the Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad Company will be deducted from the irrigable area."
On or about December 2, 1916, the Minidoka Irrigation District contracted with the Secretary of the Interior under Act of Congress June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof, to take over and operate the Minidoka project. At that time there were no water rights under the said reclamation project appurtenant to the railroad right of way, no water available therefor, and no water had been delivered to or received by the right of way for use in connection therewith. Nor has there been since.
No assessments were ever levied against the right of way until December 1, 1925, when the Board of Directors of the respondent district levied upon appellant's right of way an assessment for operation and maintenance for the year 1925 which was contested, resulting in this litigation.
Appellant urges that under C. S., sec. 4489, the assessment is not authorized. Other grounds of opposition touch upon the constitutionality of the statutes involved which latter points, in view of our disposition of the case, need not be considered.
C. S., sec. 4486, limits the levying of assessments under the situation here involved to the method prescribed in C. S., chap. 178, not chap. 175, thus:
"In cases where the United States has constructed irrigation works, canals and laterals, under the provision of the act of Congress of June 17, 1902, known as the Reclamation Act, or acts amendatory or supplemental thereto, within the boundaries of an irrigation district, or for the irrigation of lands within an irrigation district organized either before or after the construction of said works, the board of directors of said irrigation district may enter into a contract with the United States to care for, operate and maintain the said works, or parts thereof, and may levy assessments for the purpose of such operation and maintenance of said works, and collect the same in the same manner as in this chapter provided."
C. S., sec. 4489, provides as follows:
"Such operation and maintenance assessment shall be apportioned pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress of August 13, 1914, known as the Reclamation Extension Act, upon the basis of the number of acre-feet of water delivered during the preceding irrigation season but with a minimum charge upon each acre of irrigable land whether irrigated or not for delivery of not less than one acre-foot of water."
Assessments under C. S., sec. 4482, are not for maintenance and operation. (Haga v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 38 Idaho 333, 221 P. 147.)
Respondent relies largely on Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 578, 102 P. 904. This case was decided with relation to the statutes in C. S., chap. 175. The assessments in said chapter are levied under C. S., sec. 4384, on all the lands of the district "proportionate to the benefits received by such lands growing out of the maintenance and operations of the said works of said district," there being no restrictions as in C. S., sec. 4489.
Section 4489 is in chap. 178 and applies only to districts co-operating with the federal government and provides that the assessments shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial