State ex rel. Goshen Irrigation District v. Hunt, Secretary of State

• Decision Date: 05 May 1936
• Docket Number: 1947
• Citation: 57 P.2d 793,49 Wyo. 497
• Parties: STATE EX REL. GOSHEN IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HUNT, SECRETARY OF STATE
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

57 P.2d 793

49 Wyo. 497

STATE EX REL. GOSHEN IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. HUNT, SECRETARY OF STATE

No. 1947

Supreme Court of Wyoming

May 5, 1936

Original mandamus proceeding by the State of Wyoming, on the relation of the Goshen Irrigation District, against Lester C Hunt, Secretary of State of the State of Wyoming. Heard on Demurrer to the petition.

Writ of mandamus denied.

For the defendant and in support of his demurrer, there was a brief by Ray E. Lee, Attorney General, Thos. F. Shea, Deputy Attorney General and Wm. C. Snow, Assistant Attorney General of Cheyenne, and oral arguments by Messrs. Lee and Snow.

The major question here involved is whether an irrigation district is a legal subdivision of the state. Relator is seeking the issuance of a motor truck license under Section 72-102, R. S. 1931, exempting the United States, the State of Wyoming and legal subdivisions thereof from the payment of fees for such licenses. Defendant demurred to relator's petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The exempt clause of the State Constitution appears in Article XV Section 12. The term "legal subdivision" occurs in other sections of the Constitution. Article XV, Section 7; Article XVI, Section 4. The term includes only governing bodies of the State, which are an arm of the State. Sullivan v. Blakesley, 35 Wyo. 73. It was not intended by the Act of 1931 to change or alter the exemption of property as it previously existed. The authority of the legislature to exempt property is not unlimited. Irrigation districts are not political subdivisions of the state. Sullivan v. Blakesley, supra; Nelson v. District (Mo.) 139 S.W. 136. Neither are drainage districts political subdivisions. Jackson v. Breeland, (S. C.) 88 S.E. 128; Sawyer v. Dist., (N. C.) 102 S.E. 273; Collins v. Hollis, (Ala.) 102 So. 379; Thaanum v. Dist., (Mont.) 232 P. 528. The term, "legal subdivision," was considered in West v. School District, 37 Wyo. 36. An irrigation district is not a municipal corporation. Lewiston District v. Gilmore, (Idaho) 23 P.2d 720; Cooley, Taxation (4th Ed.) 623; Buffalo Rapids Irrigation District v. Colleran, 279 P. 369; Board v. Webb Company, (N. C.) 76 S.E. 552; Irrigation District v. DeBow, (Wash.) 270 P. 817. The property of an irrigation district is not exempt from taxation Irrigation District v. Company, (Wash.) 270 P. 813. The rule of strict construction is applied to claims for exemption. Cooley, Taxation, 4th Ed. 3671; District v. Gilmore, supra. The exemption of property is not an arbitrary power. State v. Snyder, 29 Wyo. 199; 26 R. C. L., Sec. 262, Note 11; Hamilton v. Wilson, (Kan.) 59 P. 1069; Thomas v. Snead, (Va.) 39 S.E. 586; Mass. General Hospital v. Belmont, 124 N.E. 21; State v. Daniels, (Wash.) 49 P. 243; District v. Benton County, supra. It has been held that irrigation districts are an arm of the state and exempt from taxation. La Mesa District v. Hornbeck, (Cal.) 8 P.2d 1031; Irrigation District v. Colleran, (Mont.) 279 P. 369. But the rule has not been followed in other jurisdictions. Governmental bodies are distinguished by their immunity from suit. Hull v. Town of Roxboro, (N. C.) 55 S.E. 351; 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 638. Drainage Districts are private property and a lien or general taxes thereon are superior to the lien for drainage district taxes. Robinson v. Hanson, 282 P. 782; Hanson v. Burris, 46 P.2d 400.

For the relator, there was a brief by Reid & More of Torrington and oral argument by Erle H. Reid.

The first ground of the demurrer is that the alternative writ was issued without leave. A petition for mandamus differs from quo warranto. State v. Christmas, 44 P.2d 905; Sec. 89-4503. Relator is not only a municipal corporation organized under Article 7, Chapter 122, Wyoming Revised Statutes for 1931, but is also a Federal Agency under the provisions of an act of Congress, known as the Reclamation Act. This court has held that an irrigation district is a public corporation, but not a municipal corporation. Sullivan v. Blakesley, 35 Wyo. 73. The following authorities are pertinent to the question here involved. 67 C. J. 1929; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112; Jenison v. Redfield, (Cal.) 87 P. 62; Bank of San Diego v. District, (Cal.) 77 P. 937; Wilbur v. Irrigation District, (Cal. App.) 271 P. 514; Bottoms v. District, (Cal.) 242 P. 100; People v. Irrigation District, 197 P. 384; Mercantile Company v. McIntyre, (Colo.) 138 P. 59; Falls District v. Thrall, (Idaho) 228 P. 236; La Mesa Irrigation District v. Halley, (Cal.) 239 P. 719; Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District v. Court, 187 P. 1056; Central Irrigation District v. De Lappe, (Cal.) 21 P. 825; Roberts v. Richland District, (Wash.) 13 P. 439; Flansburg v. Shumway, 219 N.W. 956; District v. Crittenden, (Mont.) 227 P. 63; Kinne v. Burgess, (Ariz.) 211 P. 573. It has been held that irrigation district property is exempt from taxation. Reclamation District v. County, (Cal.) 66 P. 668; Bexar District v. State, (Texas) 21 S.W.2d 747; Turlack District v. White, (Cal.) 198 P. 1060; Henson v. Monday, (Tenn.) 224 S.W. 1043; Morrison v. Morey, (Mo.) 48 S.W. 629. The Goshen Irrigation District is a Federal Agency and not subject to taxation under the terms of the Federal Reclamation Act. U. S. v. Baker, 229 U.S. 189; 42 U. S. Stat. 541; Section 511 of Title 43 of the U. S. Code Annotated; also Section 500. Title 43 U. S. Code Annotated; 61 C. J. 381; Reed v. Commissioner, 34 F.2d 263; Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51; Territory v. Packing Company, 6 Alaska 585; Water District v. Chenu, 207 P. 261. There is a conflict among the authorities as to whether property of an irrigation district is exempt from taxation. The authorities cited by defendant fairly illustrate the other position taken by the courts in this matter. We desire to cite the case of Nelson v. District, (Mo.) 139 S.W. 136, construing the meaning of the term "political subdivision." See also Jackson v. Breeland, (S. C.) 88 S.E. 128. We earnestly contend that we are a subdivision of the state, that our property is state property and that plaintiff was created for a public purpose and property in its charge devoted to a public use.

RINER, Justice. KIMBALL, CH. J., and BLUME, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

The relator, Goshen Irrigation District, commenced this action in this Court against the defendant, Lester C. Hunt as Secretary of State of the State of Wyoming, praying that an alternative writ of mandamus be issued to the officer named, commanding him, upon payment of his proper fees, to issue to relator official license plates for a certain motor truck owned by it, or to show cause why he should not do so.

The averments of the plaintiff's petition so far as necessary to an understanding of the questions presented are substantially these:

That the Goshen Irrigation District aforesaid was organized more than twelve years ago by a decree of the District Court of Goshen County, Wyoming, pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 of Chapter 122, Wyoming Revised Statutes, 1931, and acts amendatory and supplemental thereto, that in December, 1904, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States filed with the State Engineer of the State of Wyoming, an application for a permit to construct a reservoir to be known as the "Pathfinder Reservoir," near Alcova, Wyoming, to utilize the water supply of the North Platte River in this State pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Congress popularly known as the Reclamation Act, and also certain applications for secondary permits for the use of the water to be stored in said reservoir, among which was one to construct the Fort Laramie Canal. Inferentially it may be gathered from the petition that the reservoir aforesaid was constructed, though it does not appear to be positively so alleged. The canal last mentioned, it is stated, heads near Whalen, Wyoming, and extends thence more than one hundred miles south-easterly across the Wyoming and Nebraska State line to a point about south of the town of Gering, Nebraska, and supplies water for the irrigation and reclamation of a large land acreage.

During the year 1923, the relator was organized, and at that time eighty per centum of the lands lying under said Canal in Wyoming were public lands of the United States or unperfected homestead entries. For about three years thereafter the relator obtained water for the lands within it under annual rental contracts made with the United States, but under date of November 24, 1926, relator entered into a contract with the United States of America providing for acquiring a permanent water right for said lands. A copy of this contract was placed in the files of this cause, and we shall regard it--as was stated on the argument had herein without question--to be an accurate one and proper to be considered in conjunction with the petition in this case.

Under that contract, effective December 31, 1926, the care operation and maintenance of that portion of the main Fort Laramie Canal of the Fort Laramie Division of the North Platte Project, extending from Station 12 to the Wyoming-Nebraska State line, all lateral distributaries, drainage channels, dams, dikes, protective works and structures constructed for the benefit of the lands of the District under said Fort Laramie Division, all buildings in Wyoming used for operation purposes in connection with said Fort Laramie Division, except those reserved for the United States, was transferred to the Goshen Irrigation District aforesaid, but it was expressly provided that no title to any of the works was passed to said District and that at its own cost the care, operation and maintenance of these works should be conducted by the District, pursuant to law, regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and...