State ex rel. Wenatchee Heights Reclamation Dist. of Chelan County v. Banker

• Decision Date: 20 November 1934
• Docket Number: 25320,25343.
• Citation: 179 Wash. 343,37 P.2d 1115
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WENATCHEE HEIGHTS RECLAMATION DIST. OF CHELAN COUNTY et al. v. BANKER. STATE ex rel. SPOKANE VALLEY IRR. DIST. OF SPOKANE COUNTY et al. v. SAME.

37 P.2d 1115

179 Wash. 343

STATE ex rel. WENATCHEE HEIGHTS RECLAMATION DIST. OF CHELAN COUNTY et al. v. BANKER.

STATE ex rel. SPOKANE VALLEY IRR. DIST. OF SPOKANE COUNTY et al. v. SAME.

Nos. 25320, 25343.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

November 20, 1934

Original petitions for peremptory writs of mandate by the State, on the relation of the Wenatchee Heights Reclamation District of Chelan County and others, and by the State, on the relation of the Spokane Valley Irrigation District of Spokane County and others, against E. F. Banker, as Director of the State Department of Conservation and Development and as Acting Supervisor of the Division of Reclamation of said department.

Peremptory writs issued.

G. W Hamilton, George Downer, and W. A. Toner, all of Olympia, for respondent.

Hugo F Luhman, of Yakima, amici curiae.

HOLCOMB Justice.

These two matters are Before us on original petitions for peremptory writs of mandate directing respondent to accept bonds sold to him and provide payment therefor. The facts are fully alleged in the petitions to which respondent demurred on the ground that the petitions do not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action or to warrant the issuance of the writs.

The case of the Spokane Valley irrigation district of Spokane county is one involving an irrigation district which is situate in a county of the first class. The case on behalf of Wenatchee Heights reclamation district of Chelan county is one involving a reclamation district not situated in a county of the first class, but situated wholly within the one county.

In the Spokane Valley irrigation district petition it is alleged that the voters of the district on or about August 4, 1934 authorized the issuance and disposal of $308,945.70 of the bonds of the district at a special election held in the district on that date, called, conducted, and canvassed in accordance with the provisions of Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7417 et seq. A part of these bonds in the sum of $500 was sold to respondent, subject to approval as to the legality by the Attorney General. A tender of same was made to him with a request for a warrant in payment of the purchase price thereof, but respondent, upon advice from the Attorney General, refused to accept the tender and to deliver a warrant in payment thereof to the officers of relator district, on the sole ground that the bonds are not valid obligations of the district because the election authorizing the bonds was not called, conducted, and canvassed, under the provisions of chapter 29, p. 76, Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.). Respondent will continue to refuse to accept the bonds agreed to be purchased and to provide for the payment therefor until the validity of the special election above mentioned has been finally determined by this court. It is conceded that the officials of the district fully complied with the provisions of section 7417 et seq., Rem. Rev. Stat., but failed to comply with the provisions of chapter 29, p. 76, Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.).

On or about February 1, 1934, relators, the officers of the Wenatchee Heights reclamation district of Chelan county and its board of directors, entered into an agreement with the state director of the department of conservation and development for the sale of $95,000 of the bonds of that district. The bonds were duly issued and tendered to respondent, who refused to accept them on the sole ground that the election proceedings in connection with the bond issue was conducted under the provisions of the irrigation district law, section 7417 et seq., Rem. Rev. Stat., and not in accordance with chapter 29, p. 76, Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.). Relators of that district seek a peremptory writ directing respondent to purchase the bonds in accordance with the terms of the sale.

Both actions are to compel respondent to accept the bonds as valid. The sole question involved herein, therefore, is whether the provisions of chapter 29 supersede the provisions of section 7417 et seq., supra, and should have been followed in calling, conducting, and canvassing the special elections authorizing the bonds in question.

If the provisions of chapter 29, supra, apply, the bonds of both districts in question are illegal, and their petitions should be denied.

The same extraordinary session of the Legislature of 1933, provided an appropriation for the purchase of irrigation and other reclamation district bonds in the furtherance of agricultural relief. Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.) c. 13, p. 38, § 1, amending Laws 1919, p. 445, § 5, as amended. Federal agencies are also engaged in purchasing the bonds of such districts with the same object in view. Federal Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, June 16, 1933 (43 USCA § 403).

In State ex rel. School District No. 92 of Clark County v. State Finance Committee, 35 P.2d 500, 501, we held that chapter 29, p. 76, Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.), impliedly repealed special provisions for holding elections, contained in the code of education, and it is argued by respondent that chapter 29, supra, applies to all elections, and impliedly repeals the election provisions of our irrigation district laws.

While that decision involved a very confusing and conflicting series of statutes, the irrigation district election laws were not even mentioned in the majority decision or by either party to the controversy. While the language of the act, which was construed in the majority decision, was stated to be 'sweepingly broad,' there were certain provisions in the act construed in that decision (chapter 29, supra) which expressly repeal certain sections of the old general election law and then said: 'And all other acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.'

The majority of those who signed that decision still consider that it was the only construction possible in that case, but we do not consider that there is anything in common between the issues there and in these two cases. We there stated that '* * * heretofore under these separate acts just such an election board, as is created by chapter 29, has functioned throughout the state in all counties and all elections save only as other provisions of the law created exceptions.'

Irrigation district special elections always have been exceptions. These districts may be created comprising territory in more than one county. The right of suffrage in their special elections differs vastly, for one thing, in requiring ownership of land in such district, but not requiring residence therein. Corporations may vote thereat, through their duly authorized officers, which is not permitted at any other county or municipal election. There are other differences as to qualifications of voters at such special elections, with the qualifications of electors at all other elections, unnecessary to mention. It is manifest that there are plain and positive distinctions between the election law applying to these cases and that governing the School District Case, supra. Irrigation districts are not, in general, municipal corporations for all municipal purposes. We have said that '* * * irrigation districts are agencies of the state created by the Legislature for certain definite purposes, and that they might be considered quasi municipal corporations.' Columbia Irrigation District v. Benton County, 149 Wash. 234, 270 P. 813, 815.

The 1933 extraordinary session also passed amendments to the irrigation district law relating to district bond elections. Laws of 1933 (Ex. Sess.) p. 23, c. 11. It should be observed that the irrigation district law includes three acts authorizing the issuance and disposal of refunding bonds. One may be termed the general act, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7431 1/2 et seq.; another is a special bond refunding act, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7434-1 et seq.; and the third is the limited liability bond refunding act, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7530-1 et seq.

Chapter 11, supra, was undoubtedly enacted for the purpose of clarifying the manner in which the bonds of irrigation districts either theretofore or thereafter issued may be refunded, in whole or in part, in the manner therein provided. In the same amendatory act (by section 5) the following new section was added to the general bond act of the irrigation district law:

'Section 7432 1/2. That the procedure outlined in sections 7431 1/2 to 7432 both inclusive of Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington, 1927 Supplement, and in section 7433 of Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington,

...