Roberts v. Richland Irr. Dist.

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MILLARD, J.
• Citation: Roberts v. Richland Irr. Dist., 13 P.2d 437, 169 Wash. 156 (Wash. 1932)
• Decision Date: 08 August 1932
• Docket Number: 23513.
• Parties: ROBERTS v. RICHLAND IRR. DIST. et al. (LYLE et al., Interveners.

13 P.2d 437

169 Wash. 156

ROBERTS v. RICHLAND IRR. DIST. et al. (LYLE et al., Interveners.

No. 23513.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

August 8, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; Matt L. Driscoll, Judge.

Action by J. T. Roberts, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against the Richland Irrigation District and others, in which J. T. S. Lyle and others intervened. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Venables Graham & Howe, of Seattle, and Albert Olsen, of Spokane, for appellant.

M. M Moulton, of Kennewick, for respondents irrigation district and directors.

Preston Thorgrimson & Turner, of Seattle, for interveners.

Harold H. Hartman and Warren H. Lewis, both of Seattle, and Fred J Cunningham, of Spokane, amici curiae.

MILLARD J.

J. T. Roberts, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brought this action to enjoin the Richland irrigation district and its directors and the commissioners and the treasurer of Benton county from levying, or spreading upon the record of the county, any assessment for the payment of the interest or the principal of the district's bonds (which were issued to pay for district improvements) 'against any particular tract of land within said district which will require the payment by the owner of said land of an amount in excess of the special benefit actually accruing to each particular tract of land by reason of the acquiring of water rights and making of improvements by the district, and the issuance of bonds as hereinabove referred to.'

The interveners (certain owners and holders of bonds issued by the district), who appeared individually and as trustees, and the defendants, interposed demurrers, which were sustained. The appeal is from the judgment of dismissal rendered upon the plaintiff's refusal to plead further.

The allegations of the complaint are, substantially, as follows: Appellant is the owner of forty acres of land in the Richland irrigation district. That district was legally established, and its organization approved and confirmed judicially in 1919. Thereafter, pursuant to statutory requirements, the district issued bonds in the sum of $538,000 the proceeds from the sale of which were used to purchase additional water rights and to pay the cost of improvements essential to the irrigation of the lands within the district. The bonds bear interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum payable semiannually. By reason of the improvements made by the district, the thirty-five irrigable acres of appellant's forty-acre tract were benefited $10 an acre; that is, total benefits of $350 accrued to appellant's forty-acre tract by reason of the improvements made by the district. The ultimate amount of the liability of the appellant's land for assessments for bond purposes during the ten-year maturing period of the bonds is $560 ($350 plus interest of 6 per centum per annum for ten years). For the years 1920 to 1929, inclusive, appellant paid an aggregate of $1,168.65 in assessments against his forty acres for the payment of interest and principal of the bonds described above. The directors of the district have made all preparations for and are threatening to levy for the year 1930 an assessment of $757.53 against the lands of the appellant for the purpose of meeting interest and principal on the bonds. No part of the levy is made on account of, or with reference to, any special benefit accruing to the real property of the appellant. The assessment was levied for the purpose of creating a fund to take up or eliminate the deficiencies in the bond interest and bond retirement funds 'due wholly or in part to a failure of certain landowners within the district to pay assessments which have heretofore or will hereafter be levied against lands in said district belonging to such other persons.' The directors of the district informed the appellant that it is their fixed policy, and that they propose to 'assess and re-assess all delinquencies which have heretofore or may hereafter accrue against the lands of this plaintiff and other lands in the district which continue to pay their assessments, without delinquency, until the lands of this plaintiff, and the lands of other persons who have and who shall hereafter pay the assessments levied will create a fund sufficient to pay the entire outstanding indebtedness, and retire said bonds, both principal and interest, and that they propose to make such assessment without reference to the special benefits which have accrued to the real property of this plaintiff and any other landowners in the district who may continue to pay their assessments, but to be governed and determined in making said assessments solely by a consideration of the amount of money required to pay said indebtedness. * * *'

Is the annual assessment against each tract of land within an irrigation district for the payment of interest or the principal of bonds issued to pay the cost of irrigation district improvements limited to the maximum benefits accruing to the tract of land by reason of such improvements? That is the only question, which is not an open one in this state, presented by this appeal.

Counsel for appellant contend that the Irrigation Act requires that the maximum benefits received by such tract of land within the district from the issuance of the district bonds be determined annually, and that the benefits so ascertained establish the limit of the assessment against each tract of land for bond purposes. It is insisted that the statute, if it authorize the annual levy of assessments for bond purposes in excess of benefits received from such bond issue, is unconstitutional, in that the taking of property without due process of law is thereby made possible.

No question is raised as to the legality of the formation of the district or of the inclusion of all lands within the district. Counsel concede that the aggregate benefits to the lands within the district equal the bonded indebtedness of the district, and that the lands of the appellant have been benefited to some extent. It is not contended that, as between appellant's land and other privately owned land, the former is disproportionately assessed. The question, argue counsel for appellant, is: 'Assuming the legal organization of an irrigation district after notice and hearing upon the question of organization, boundaries, inclusions of land to be benefited and the total amount of benefits to all the lands within the district, is the individual landowner entitled to another hearing after due notice for the purpose of allocating to his land its just proportion of the benefits, and does the benefit thus allocated limit his liability to pay?'

An irrigation district is a public corporation having some of the powers of a municipal corporation. The bond obligation is a general corporate obligation. The landowner is not entitled to a segregation of his share of the obligation at the time it is created, or at a later time. There is no provision in the Irrigation Act for a segregation at any time. The obligation is a general one, and all lands within the district are subject to taxation for the payment of the entire obligation. State ex rel. Clancy v. Columbia Irrigation District, 121 Wash. 79, 208 P. 27; State ex rel. Wells v. Hartung, 150 Wash. 590, 274 P. 181, 185.

In 1919 there was a due adjudication of the organization of the district determining the lands to be included within the district, the amount of bonds to be issued, and the interest to be paid thereon. It must be conclusively presumed, from that adjudication, as we said in State ex rel. Wells v....