Case ID: idaho_23/html/0344-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "AILSHIE, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(February 10, 1913.)
    PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Respondent, v. F. S. STONE, Appellant.
    [130 Pac. 382.]
    Powers or Irrigation Districts — Power to Contract With Secretary or the Interior — Government Declamation Service — Powers or District to Drain Overelowed Land.
    1. Sees. 2397 and 2398 of the Eev. Codes authorize the board of directors of an irrigation district to contract with the United States for the construction of necessary works for the supply of water and irrigation of lands within the district, and the provisions of those sections have been complied with in this case and the action of the district has been regular and legal.
    
      2. Under the laws of this state, an irrigation district may provide for the drainage and reclamation of lands within the district which have been flooded or water-logged by reason of overflow, percolation or seepage from its irrigation works, and the accomplishment of such purpose is one of the necessarily implied duties of the district equally as incumbent on the district as the irrigation of its dry and arid lands.
    3. The Boise-Payette Water Users’ Association has the power under its articles of incorporation and the state statute, to sign and execute a contract with the Secretary of the Interior for supplying water to the district for the irrigation of its lands and the drainage of overflowed lands within the district.
    4. Under the provisions of the act of June 17, 1902, known as the reclamation act (32 Stats, at Large, 388), and the decision of the circuit court of appeals, in Burley v. United States, 179 Fed. 1, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 807, 102 O. C. A. 429 and the act of Congress of February 21, 1911 (36 Stats, at Large, 925), known as the Warren act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and has the power to contract with an irrigation district for supplying water to such district, or partially supplying it with water for the irrigation of the lands therein and for the drainage of other lands within such district.
    APPEAL from tbe District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. lion. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
    Action by the Pioneer Irrigation District for the confirmation of the proceedings of the district taken with reference to a certain proposed contract with the United States. Judgment confirming the proceedings.
    Appeal and judgment affirmed.
    Griffiths & Griffiths, for Appellant.
    The question as to whether or not the federal government has the power to reclaim lands in private ownership, and if it has that power, then whether it has been exercised in the passage of the reclamation act, are partially covered and in a measure answered by the United States supreme court in the case of Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. ed. 956, and by the circuit court of appeals in the ease of Burley v. United States, 179 Fed. 1, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 807, 102 C. C. A. 429.
    
      As to whether an irrigation district has the power and authority to construct a drainage system for its lands is still unanswered, except in so far as this court in the case of Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Ida. 98, 120 Pac. 461, has covered the point. (See, also, Stuart v. Noble Bitch Go., 9 Ida. 765, 76 Pae. 255; McPherson v. Alta Irr. Dist., 14 Cal. App. 353, 112 Pae. 193.)
    B. E. Stoutemyer and Thompson & Buckner, for Respondent.
    The question with reference to the accumulation of drainage, waste and seepage waters and the plan to utilize them for irrigation purposes was before this court in the case of Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Ida. 98, 120 Pae. 461, in which the court construed sec. 2386, Rev. Codes.
    ‘ ‘ Such provisions are to be liberally construed to carry out the provisions of the law.” (Nampa^Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 11 Ida. 474, 83 Pae. 499.)
    The whole subject of the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under the reclamation act to build irrigation works for the reclamation of privately owned as well as public lands, and in so doing co-operate with private land owners, corporations or districts, has received examination and discussion in the case of Burley v. United States, 179 Fed. 1, 102 C. C. A. 429, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 807.
   AILSHIE, C. J.

— This action was instituted by the Pioneer Irrigation District under the provisions of sec. 2401 of the Rev. Codes for the confirmation of the proceedings of the district after a vote had been taken on a certain proposed contract with the United States and the Boise-Payette Water Users Association. After a hearing, the court entered a decree confirming the proceedings, and this appeal has been prosecuted.

Three questions are presented: First, that the contract has not been duly authorized by the qualified electors of the Pioneer Irrigation District and that the board of directors of the Pioneer Irrigation District is not duly authorized to execute the contract; second, that the Boise-Payette Water Users Association has no authority to sign the proposed contract; and, third, that the Secretary of the Interior has no authority under the acts of Congress to enter into the proposed contract.

In the first place, the contract has been authorized by a vote of the qualified electors of the district in conformity with the statute. The statute, secs. 2397 and 2398 of the Bev. Codes, specifically authorizes the proceedings which have been taken in this case, and authorizes an irrigation district to enter into such a contract with the United States for the purpose of carrying out the purposes and objects of an irrigation district. Upon the question of whether or not an irrigation district has a right to provide means and expend money for the drainage of overflowed lands within the district, this court in the .ease of Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Ida. 98, 120 Pac. 461, expressed the opinion that such action might be taken. While the views there expressed were not essential to the determination of that case, a further investigation of the question convinces us of the correctness of the impressions the court then had on the subject, and we adopt the views therein expressed as the opinion of the court, and hold that an irrigation district possesses the powers necessary to drain its overflowed lands and to protect its land owners from seepage and overflow waters as well as to supply water to the dry and arid lands of the district.

It appears to us that the Boise-Payette Water Users Association has the power to sign and execute the proposed contract both under its articles of incorporation and the statute dealing with irrigation districts and the land owners and water users therein. The association was acting as trustee for the land owners who were members thereof, and we have not had our attention called to any law or fact which would militate against the action taken by the association.

It would seem to us that the Secretary of the Interior has the power to enter into such a contract under the provisions of the act of June 17, 1902, known as the reclamation act (32 Stats, at Large, 388, 7 Fed. St. Ann. 1098, U. S. Comp. Stats. (Supp. 1911), p. 662). The United States circuit court of appeals in Burley v. United States, 179 Fed. 1, 102 C. C. A. 429, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 807, seems to have entertained the same view, and held that the secretary has power to enter into contracts such as the one under consideration. If, however, there could have been any question or doubt on this subject, it seems to us that all such doubt should have been dissipated by the provisions of the act of February 21, 1911 (36 Stats, at Large 925, Fed. St. Ann. (Supp. 1912), p. 417, U. S. Comp. Stats. (Supp. 1911), p. 681), known as the Warren act, which act specifically provides for and authorizes contracts such as the one under consideration. The proceedings seem to have been regular, the statute authorizes the same, and the contract is clearly within the purview of the statutes of the state and the acts of Congress as well.

The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.

Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.