The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-24
DRAINAGE LAW TAXATION.

The suit which is about TO be
brought in the interests OF a. W. Nc
Cune and others to clear the title
to land which was sold in the drainage
district west Of Jordan river for the
non-payment OF drainage taxes, brings
prominently forward the invalldity ol
drainage district taxation. It appears
that the lands sought to be freed from
tho liability of that taxation and from
the sale which was made by reason OIL
tho uonpa vment of the district drain
aqc taxes, are clouied in title be
cause of that sale, and the SUIT is 10
lift that cloud from the title.
There have been, as stated In those
columns heretofore, various epactments
of the Legislature with respect To inc
creation Of drainage districts and the
doing of drainage work. There is no
question of the need Of drainage as
TO a great deal of land that has been
rendered practically valueless because
of the flooding Of it through lrriEa-
ton. The first State Legislature IN
1896 passed a drainage district Iawr
but nothing was done under 1T. lhere
was an amendment of this law in I9oo,
and in 1907 the law was thoroughly
revised and reconstructed. 1t is TINS
law that has recently been declared
invalid
The case upon which this conclusion
was reached by the courts arose III
Utah county, where Benjamin Argyle
and others sued NJ. Johnson, former
Treasurer of Utah county, enJoinlng
him from the collection of tax for
drainage district purposes. The com
plainants set forth that their land dlo
not nee,l any drainage, and that tney
were not given an opportunity to be
heard in thoir own behalf. The Fourth
District Court thcreupon hold IN their
favor. and annulled the drainage dis
tfict assessment made In pursuance OF
law. On appeal to the State supreme
Court. that body affirmed the decision
of the Fourth District Court In
validating the law, the ground, as
stated, being. that to impose tax Ike
this without notice or hearing is un-
constitutional, In that it involved the
taking of property without due process
of law. AS originally enacted, the
law provided for the hearing which
the court now DEGREES is essential.
Mr.. Joseph s. Wells appears as the
complainant in behalf of the McCune
and other interests involved, and there
would appear TO be clear sailing In
the suit which he is about to bring, be-
cause the Supreme Court, having
found the law invalid, it follows OF
necessity that any tax assessed or
collected under that law is null and
void. So that the purchasers Of the
tax title are out their money. and
will have to look to the County Treas
urcr for reimbursement.
It is unfortunate that the law was
not left as originally framed In tins
particular, because there Is no doubt
of the necessity and benefit of a proper
drainage law. Some of the most bitter
litigation that has ever occurred IN the
State has been brought for the over
flowing of lands that have been prac-
tically ruined by reason OF water
flooded upon them from irrigated areas
living at higher levels. The reclama-
ton of these tracts Of land would, IN
itself, be a very substantial and solid
addition to the agricultural wealth OF
the State, while the drainage would
also operate to reclaim new lands, and
thus add to the States wealth and
productivcness.
1t is to he hoped that the next
Legislature may take up this question
in a more intelligent spirit, and enact
drainage law that will be fair and
lust 10 all. as we'll as legally constltu-
tional. The great trouble with Utah S
legislation generally is It's incoheronce,
the impossiblity Of understanding Just
what II means. and its disregard Of tho
Constitution. But what can be eX-
pected of legislature which Will de-
liberatelv and wlllfullv disregard the
plain requirement OF the Constitution
for a rcapportionmcnt for legislative
representation, and perpctuate In the
State an apportionment based on the
population OF tvcnty-one years agoi