Stephenson v. Pioneer Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 03 April 1930
• Docket Number: 5346
• Citation: 288 P. 421,49 Idaho 189
• Parties: E. W. STEPHENSON, Respondent, v. PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

288 P. 421

49 Idaho 189

E. W. STEPHENSON, Respondent, v. PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant

No. 5346

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 3, 1930

WATERS AND WATERCOURSES-IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF CANAL SYSTEM-DAMAGES.

1. Construction and operation of irrigation canals and ditches are proprietary rather than governmental functions, hence irrigation district is responsible in damages for negligent construction and operation of its canal system notwithstanding it is a quasi-public corporation and possesses some governmental powers and exercises some governmental functions, in view of C. S., sec. 4346.

2. In action by land owner against irrigation district for damage caused by negligent construction of irrigation canal, whether construction of canal was made in negligent manner held under evidence, for jury.

3. In land owner's action for damage to crops caused by water seeping, percolating and escaping from irrigation canal evidence held sufficient to support verdict for land owner.

4. In land owner's action for damage to land and crops caused by water seeping and percolating from irrigation canal instructions constituting substantial copies of C. S., secs. 5656 and 5657, held not objectionable.

5. In land owner's action against irrigation district for damage caused by seepage water, land owner held entitled to reimbursement for money expended by him in reasonable effort to avoid injuries for water negligently escaping from irrigation canal.

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

Action for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

Rice & Bicknell, for Appellant.

An irrigation district has some of the attributes of a municipal corporation, but is not a true municipal corporation. Irrigation districts are held to be agencies of the state or arms of the state. (Columbia Irr. Dist. v. Benton County, 149 Wash. 234, 270 P. 813; Richland Irr. Dist. v. De Bow, 149 Wash. 242, 270 P. 816; Colburn v. Wilson, 24 Idaho 94, 132 P. 579.)

An irrigation district, being an agency or arm of the state, is not liable in damages for the negligence of its officers unless expressly made so by statute. (Nissen v. Cordua Irr. Dist., 204 Cal. 542, 269 P. 171; Whiteman v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist., 60 Cal.App. 234, 212 P. 706; Davis v. State, 30 Idaho 137, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 911, 163 P. 373.)

An irrigation district being a political subdivision of the state, its liabilities are similar to those of counties, school districts and the like, and the rule in Idaho is laid down in the following authorities: Davis v. Ada County, 5 Idaho 126, 95 Am. St. 166, 47 P. 93; Worden v. Witt, 4 Idaho 404, 95 Am. St. 70, 39 P. 1114; Youmans v. Thornton, 31 Idaho 10, 168 P. 1141; Davis v. State, supra.

Rhodes & Estabrook, for Respondent.

An irrigation district is a quasi-public corporation, organized, however, to conduct business for the private benefit of the owners of lands within its limits. It is, in the administration of its business, the owner of its system in a proprietary rather than a public capacity and must assume and bear the burdens of proprietary ownership. (City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; Noon v. Gem Irr. Dist., 205 F. 402; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369.)

An irrigation district may not take or damage private property under the guise of exercising a governmental function, and if it does so, it is liable to compensate the person whose property has been taken or damaged. (Perkins v. Blauth, 163 Cal. 782, 127 P. 50; United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 23 S.Ct. 349, 47 L.Ed. 539; Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U.S. 636, 31 S.Ct. 654, 55 L.Ed. 890, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 243.)

GIVENS, C. J. Lee, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur. BUDGE, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.

OPINION

GIVENS, C. J.

Plaintiff- respondent sued the defendant-appellant, an irrigation district, for damages on two causes of action: First for injuries to the crops on his land during 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, caused by water seeping, percolating and escaping from appellant's canal; and second, to recover for the permanent injury and destruction of two acres of the said land in an attempt to drain the same. The appeal is from a judgment on both causes of action.

Numerous assignments of error are made which, however, group themselves into the following divisions: First, the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action, dependent in turn on the liability of appellant for damages for the alleged negligent construction, maintenance and operation of its canal; second, the sufficiency of the evidence; and third, the giving and rejection of certain instructions.

Appellant contends that irrigation districts are agencies or arms of the state and therefore not liable for the negligent construction or operation of their canals or ditches.

This court has frequently and variously defined an irrigation district: "A quasi-public corporation," Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905; "a quasi-municipal corporation," Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1218, 136 P. 618.

"Not a public service corporation in the sense that it is a common carrier to any other or greater extent than the term implies when applied to its own membership, and confined to the business of carrying water for the irrigation of lands within its own district. It is a mutual, cooperative corporation, organized not for profit, engaged in distributing water to its members for use upon lands within its district." (Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Briggs, 27 Idaho 84, at 105, 147 P. 75, 82.)

"A municipal corporation." (Gem Irr. Dist. v. Van Deusen, 31 Idaho 779, 176 P. 887; Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946.)

"A quasi-public or municipal corporation." (Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., 37 Idaho 300, at 308, 216 P. 250.)

The definition, most enlightening with regard to the question we are here considering, is found in City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, at 787, 115 P. 979, 982, as follows:

"An irrigation district is a public quasi corporation, organized however, to conduct a business for the private benefit of the owners of lands within its limits. . . . It is, in the administration of its business, the owner of its system in a proprietary rather than a public capacity, and must assume and bear the burdens of proprietary ownership."

It is apparent from the above that this court has classified an irrigation district as more in the class of municipal corporations, than in the class of counties.

The latest expression of this court with regard to the liability of a somewhat similar organization for acts done in its proprietary capacity is Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway Dist., 42 Idaho 738, 49 A. L. R. 1057, 248 P. 456, wherein it was held that a highway district is liable for its torts when the same arise out of ministerial, private, corporate or proprietary functions. The federal court of this district had previously so held with regard to an irrigation district. (Noon v. Gem Irr. Dist., 205 F. 402.)

The general rule with regard to liability in this state, for the construction, maintenance and operation of irrigation canals, is thus stated in Burt v. Farmers' Co-operative Irr. Co., Ltd., 30 Idaho 752, at 767, 168 P. 1078, 1082:

"Under the common law one who diverted water from its natural course did so at his peril, and was held practically to be an insurer against damage which might result from such action. (Citing cases). . . . The common law has been modified and relaxed in this and other arid states, so that the owner of an irrigation ditch is only liable for damages occurring to others as a result of his negligence or unskillfulness in constructing, maintaining or operating of the ditch. (Citing cases.) . . . ."

The same has also been declared in substance in Arave v. Idaho Canal Co., 5 Idaho 68, 46 P. 1024. The following decisions of this court, if not decisively, at least strongly indicate that an irrigation district is liable for the negligent operation and construction of its canal. (Munn v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 43 Idaho 198, 252 P. 865.) While the party to the above action was a canal company and not a district, it will be noticed that the holding of liability is based upon an irrigation district case. The expression in Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 37 Idaho 45, at 53, 223 P. 531, is at least a left-handed statement of liability. Verheyen v. Dewey, 27 Idaho 1, 146 P. 1116, considering a similar question, was reversed on a question of practice, not upon the substantive law.

The following cases from other jurisdictions are in line with respondent's contention herein and adverse to appellant. California: Nahl v. Alta Irr. Dist., 23 Cal.App. 333, 137 P. 1080, at 1081:

"The plaintiff, in his briefs, declares that there are two questions presented by this appeal, to wit: 'One of fact How did the flooding of plaintiff's land occur? and one of law, Is the Alta irrigation district liable?' But there is in reality but one question in the case, viz., Does the evidence support the findings? There can, of course, be no question as to the duty and obligations resting upon the owner of an irrigation ditch in his relations as such with the public. He must so construct and maintain it as that, in its operation, by the exercise of reasonable or ordinary care, no damage will result to others. To him, as well as to all persons, must...