Wheatland Irr. Dist. v. Short

Decision Date12 May 1959
Docket NumberNo. 2884,2884
PartiesWHEATLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant (Petitioner below), v. Lester SHORT, Melvin Short, Charles Clack, A. M. Downey, Hillary Bartlett, Vincent Utter, Emerson Utter, Guy M. Holmes, the Ayres Partnership, G. W. Goodrich, Ella Day, J. C. Hall, Andrew Roskie and Margaret Roskie, A. E. Barrett, Everett Prichard, Roy Starr, et al., Appellees (Objectors below).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Jones & Jones, Wheatland, for appellant.

W. J. Wehrli, Casper, for appellees.

Heard before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER and HARNSBERGER, JJ.

Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court which struck from the budget of The Wheatland Irrigation District an item designated as 'Land Loan Repayment-Ringsby--$37,500.00.'

The Wheatland Irrigation District was created on August 15, 1947, by decree of court under the authority of c. 71, art. 8, W.C.S.1945, as the successor of two companies the Wyoming Development Company and The Wheatland Industrial Company, which had for many years prior thereto maintained the principal irrigation system in Platte County. 1

The district being in existence by reason of statute and its activities controlled thereby, the original irrigation district legislation and its subsequent history are of importance. The legislature passed c. 72, S.L. of Wyoming, 1907, providing generally for the organization of irrigation districts and the construction of irrigation works. This law was amended in 1911 and almost completely revamped by c. 2, S.L. of Wyoming, Spec. Sess., 1920, 'Providing for the formation and orgnization of Irrigation Districts and conferring certain powers thereon.' This 1920 Act with some later amendments now constitutes art. 8. It set up the procedure for the organization of an irrigation district, delineated the powers, and provided among other things for the assessments, preparation of assessment rolls, collection of assessments, and enforcement of payments.

To ascertain whether or not the steps taken in the instant case have been in accordance with art. 8, we review the record on appeal, which apparently purports to contain all of the official acts since the organization of the district.

First there is the petition of the freeholders of the area setting forth various relevant facts and praying for organization. This was accompanied by a signed 'Preliminary Engineering Report to Accompany Petition * * *,' outlining in general the history of the Wyoming Development and Wheatland Industrial companies, referring to the water rights, tunnels, canals, water supply, the costs, which report was approved by the state engineer. Certain objections to the proposals were allowed and some disallowed, but the court approved and confirmed the organization and subsequently granted the district commissioners authority to execute an agreement with the former companies by which the new district would undertake to assume the obligations and succeed to the interests of its predecessors in maintaining the irrigation system. Some eighteen months later, the commissioners filed with the court an application for authority to borrow $125,000 from the Wyoming Farm Loan Board, which amount was to be evidenced by bonds of the district. According to the allegations, the borrowed money was to be used as follows:

'Construction and repairs $49,000.00

New equipment and repairs 64,014.31

Payment of fixed expenses 11,985.69'

The commissioners concurrently filed a report and budget of the district for the ensuing year, setting forth certain estimated future expenses including an item of interest and principal on the $125,000 loan. After notice this report and budget came on for hearing and was approved.

On May 7, 1957, the commissioners of the district filed with the court a petition for authority to borrow from the Wyoming Farm Loan Board a sum of money not to exceed $2,400,000 to be used for the purchase of ranch lands in Carbon and Albany counties to acquire certain water rights used in conjunction therewith; to construct new irrigation canals and other facilities; and to repair, enlarge, and renovate existing facilities--$1,500,000 to be used in the purchase of the ranch lands and the construction of water conduction facilities therefrom and the remainder for enlargement of storage facilities of the district and other contemplated improvement and renovation. 2

The petition alleged that the facts regarding this matter had been explained at a public meeting in April 1957 at which a regularly conducted election had been held, 178 landowners voting 31,248 acres in favor and 20 landowners, 4,524 acres against. (There was no filing of a preliminary engineering report.) The court thereupon issued an order to show cause. A resistance to the petition, filed by A. M. Downey, was overruled by the court on May 29, 1957, after hearing. The court on the same day issued an order granting authority to the district to borrow the said $2,400,000 from the Wyoming Farm Loan Board.

Thereafter on June 4, 1957, the commissioners filed a petition for adjudication of the budget for the ensuing year in the amount of $88,000, calling attention to certain amounts they had on hand and noting that they would pay the installments on the $125,000 bonded indebtedness to the Wyoming Farm Loan Board from the proceeds of the loan authorized on May 29, 1957. The commissioners stated that a levy of $1.25 per acre should be made on 55,948.63 acres of land in the district, asked the court to fix a time for hearing of objections and for the approval of the budget and the authorization of an assessment for the current year in the sum of $1.25 per acre on all lands in the district. The court thereafter fixed a time for hearing, and on July 12, 1957, adjudicated and approved the budget of $88,000.

On May 27, 1958, LeGrande T. Page, Commissioner of District No. 1; Woodrow May, Commissioner of District No. 2; Harlem McLeod, Commissioner of District No. 3; G. E. Graefe, Commissioner of District No. 4; and Oscar B. Gudahl, Commissioner of District No. 5, each filed with the court an identical paper, purporting to be an 'Assessment for Benefits' and stating, inter alia:

'I * * * do hereby make and assess benefits for lands situate within said District * * * in compliance with the laws of the State of Wyoming and for the purpose of determining how the payment of the District's indebtedness shall be apportioned among said lands.

'I have heretofore regularly called a meeting of the land owners within my District and have openly discussed with them at said meeting the various elements and factors to be considered in arriving at this assessment. * * *

* * *

* * *

'After giving due consideration to all of the facts, circumstances and elements involved, I do hereby assess equal benefits to all lands situate within my District.'

Neither the amount of benefits to be caused by the proposed work nor a total itemization of the cost was mentioned in the papers.

On June 2, 1958, the commissioners filed a petition for adjudication of the budget for the ensuing year, listing estimate of money needed as $139,083 (including the item, 'Land Loan Repayment-Ringsby--$37,500.00') and praying for an authorization of assessment in the sum of $2.50 per acre for all acreage in the district. The court thereupon entered an order fixing a time and place for hearing on the budget. On June 17, 1958, Florence L. Kindom filed a letter objecting to an increase in the water tax. On June 21, 1958, Mrs. Hilary Glen Bartlett by Albert B. Bartlett filed a paper stating her objections, and Mr. Bartlett filed a similar paper on his own behalf. On the same day the persons herein listed as appellees filed a joint objection pointing out among other things that no petition or application for benefits had been filed by the district and praying that the $37,500 item be stricken.

The court on June 23, 1958, entered an order reciting motion of objectors 'that no assessment for benefits 3 be determined by the Court at this time because of the lack of jurisdiction due to there not being on file or on record a petition or application of the Board * * * requesting such assessment for benefits and setting out the facts to support the same,' decreeing that the $37,500 item be removed from the budget, and reducing the per-acre levy accordingly, from which order this appeal has been taken. 4

The commissioners now contend that they have complied with all of the irrigation district statutes and that the item of $37,500 for the improvement of the existing water supply and the extension of the irrigation works was improperly stricken by the court. In order to determine the correctness of this contention, we look to art. 8 and, in particular, to the two sections which require information to be supplied to the court as a condition to the improvement and extension sought.

Section 71-801, W.C.S.1945, provides that:

'Whenever a majority of the freeholders * * * in any district * * * desire to provide for the irrigation of the same; or to improve the existing water supply for said lands; or to purchase, extend, operate or maintain constructed irrigation works * * * they may file in the district court of the county which embraces the largest acreage of the district, a petition, hereinafter referred to as the 'petition,' which shall include:'

thereafter listing various essentials including a preliminary engineering report.

Section 71-814, W.C.S.1945, provides that:

'* * * said commissioners shall * * * report in writing to the court.

'1. The extent and character of the proposed work and the sufficiency of the water supply.

'2. If it be found necessary to change the boundaries of said proposed district, previously fixed, they shall report said proposed change * * *.

'3. What lands within the district, as by them reported will be injured by the proposed work * * *.

'4. All lands within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Battlefield, Inc. v. Neely
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1983
    ...P.2d 805 (1980); Belco Petroleum Corporation v. State Board of Equalization, Wyo., 587 P.2d 204 (1978); and Wheatland Irrigation District v. Short, 80 Wyo. 136, 339 P.2d 403 (1959). Instead the construction given by the majority leads to a statutory redundancy in the phrase "any land or tra......
  • Belco Petroleum Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1978
    ...tax effective March 1, 1975. (See footnote 3.) Effect must be given to every part of a statute or act. Wheatland Irrigation Dist. v. Short, 1959, 80 Wyo. 136, 339 P.2d 403; Coady v. Batchelder, 1959, 79 Wyo. 447, 335 P.2d 443, 75 A.L.R.2d 1030. That explains why, in 1975, the legislature am......
  • Basin Elec. Power Co-op. v. State Bd. of Control
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1978
    ...clause and sentence of the statute. State ex rel. Benham v. Cheever, 71 Wyo. 303, 257 P.2d 337, 340-341; and Wheatland Irrigation District v. Short, 80 Wyo. 136, 339 P.2d 403, 409. Each of the clauses containing the restrictions on the quantity of water which may be imposed in the granting ......
  • Casper-Alcova Irrigation Dist. v. Irving, CASPER-ALCOVA
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 14, 1978
    ...some way restricts the statutory language which it follows, there was no reason for its enactment. In Wheatland Irrigation District v. Short, 80 Wyo. 136, 153, 339 P.2d 403, 409 (1959) we recognized that the courts are required to give effect to every part of the statute, and as is said in ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT