The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-09-28
DRAINAGE DISTRICT Law.

In the year 1896 the first State Leg
isature of Utah passed an act Great
ing drainage districts. and providing
for their organization and government; 4;
and further. for those districts. 'to
provide for the acquisition yof canals,
drains, and other property, and for the
distribution Of water thereby for
drainage purposes The necessity for
legislation of this kind was evident
Irrigation had been too lavish, and bit
ter litigation had cnsued over the
| flooding of lands by irrigation water
from fields higher than the lands that
were so flooded, Relief, therefore, was
desirable, and though the over.irriga
tion could not he stopped, its effects.
by the combined action of the owners
of flooded lands. could he mitigated.
Accordingly the act was passed.
No great attention was paid to it.,
however, for some time; and then, upon
the recurrence OF the trouble, the Leg
stature III response to a popular de-
mand, amended the law in 1905. Then.
as that law did not seem satisfactory
II was again reconstructed by the Leg
islature Of 1907; and under this latter
enactment a good many drainage dis
tricts were organized throughout the
State. This was done, however, not
without opposition. The difficulties in
the way of satisfactory administration
of the drainage districts were confessed
to be very great. But the need Of rem
edy was even greater, and those who
felt the need of relief persisted.
In the organization of the districts,
however, there were practical Difficult
ties unforeseen by the law. w.makers: and
there does not seem TO have been suf
fcient care exercised to provide for the
proper recognition Of all Of the realty
owners in the drainage district, and
for the proper adjustment of the ex.
Pensc of drainage and of maintaining
the work and organization. According.
ly, suit arose i'll Utah county, com
ing from the Lakeside drainage dis.
trict, near Provo, Benjamin Argyle and
others against NJ. Johnson, former
Treasurer of Utah county, enioining
him from the collection Of a tax for
drainage. district purposes levied
against the property of the plaintiffs.
1t was coutendcd that the land Of the
plaintiffs needed no draining. and that
they were not given an opportunity to
be heard in their own behalf The
Fourth District Court maintained the
validity of this objection, aud set
aside the district assessment under the
law. The case came on for hearing in
the Utah Supreme Court, and on Tues
day the decision Of the lower court was
sustained, invslidating the law; the
ground being that TO assess a tax like
this without notice or hearing was UNI
constitutional. in that it involved the
taking of property without due process
of law. AS originally enacted, the law
provided for the hearing which is now
declared by the court to be essentials
and II is singular that this hearing
should have been left out in the sub
sequent rc-enactments of the law.
The need for drainage districts re-
mains Just tho same as heretofore: and
the Legislature at its next session III
1913 will undoubtedly restore that pro-
vision in the old drainage district law.
and bring the wording of it within the
requirements of the decision of the
court, The idea in passing the drain.
age district law is not only good one.
but one which is absolutely essential
to the agricultural progress of the
State. The difficulty presented in the
case Just decided, Of including in the
drainage district land that does moi
need TO be drained, is ono that the
Legislature will have to overcome in
such way as il may. tt is real diff.
6culty. beyond doubt; because people
whose lands do not need to he drained
will naturally be unwilling to pay for
the drainage Of their neighbors land
that does need the drainage The
question presents difficulties; but there
is no question OF the absolute need of
the drainage law; and we trust that the
Legislature will take good legal advice
in framing the new law. so as TO free
il, so far as may be, from judicial
objection.