The Meridian times. (Meridian, Idaho) 1909-1938, 1915-11-26
Drainage Contract 0. X,

Inc supreme court, III an opinion
handed down on Saturday, decided in
favor OF the Nampa e. Meridian Irri-
CATION district and against James G
Petrie ct al, affirming the judgment
Of Judge Bryan Of the Seventh jude
ial district, who approved OF the crea-
ton of the district and contract be-
tween II and the reclamation service
to which exception was taken by Pc
trie and others who claimed their
lands did not require drainage. The
opinion was written By Judge Bulge
and concurred in by Chief Justice
Sullivan and Justice Morgan. Justice
Morgan, In a supplemental opinion,
declared his belief that the trainers
of the state constitution of Idaho and
the action OF congress In ratifying the
constitution, placed the sale, rental
and distribution Of all waters un-
der the control Of the state and not
subject 10 the regulation or control Of
the United States, While this ques-
ton was not before the court, 1t was
introduced In the opinion by refer
ence 10 anticipation OF the final ac-
z
the benefits to land owners"
Origin OF Case.
The original petition IN the case was
filed February s, 1916, by the Nampa
Meridian irrigation district, for the
examination, approval and confirma-
ton OF the district court OF contract /
with the government of the United /
States under which certain arid lands
xutt fl.a IA Al. ~. i
Meridian irrigation district were TO
be supplied with water for irrigation
and 20 provide for the drainage Of
lands We're water-logged, as we'll as
which We're ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10 secure supplemental storage water
Tor the purpose OF furnishing an ade-
quate supply OF water to properly ir-
rigate certain lands within the dis
trict which were being partially sup
piled through the Ridenbaugh canal
owned and operated by the Nampa e
Meridian irrigation district. A de-
murrer was filed to the petition by j.
q. Petrie and others, which resulted
in an amendment TO the same.
Decision Important.
Owing TO the interest taken In the
case al the time OF the original action
the decision handed down Saturday is
of special Importance The amended
petition alleged the ownership by the
Nampa q Meridian irrigation district
OF the Rdenbaugh canal; that the ca
nal had capacity sufficient to irri
gate only $4,000 acres of land within
the boundaries of the district, and
that, furthermore, there were within
the boundaries of the district $4,000
acres OF land which had not been irri- /
gated for the reason that the supply
of water furnished by the district was
inadequate. IL was further alleged
that the United States, by and
through It's reclamation service. was
engaged in the construction of an ir-
rigation project to properly irrigate
these $4,000 acres of land within the
boundaries of the irrigation district |
owned by the respondent.
Lands Were Water-Logged.
II also appeared from the petition
that. as an unfavorable consequence
of the location of the government ca
nal on the higher land, known as the
New York canal, and use Of water on
such land for irrigation as we'll as the
carriage OF water in the Ridenlnugh
canal and the use of water therefrtm Y
for irrigation, being the only source
OF artificial water supply in that lo- 4
cality, the surface waters and under 4
ground seenage waters resulting from \
the carriage OF waters in the canals Il
and the irrigation OF lands. moved in
northerly direction across the lands Z,
of the district to their drainage out
let in Boise river. This drainage had 4
water-logged about 1880 acres OF the \
lands watered from the Ridenbangh a
canal, and 1884 acres of the dry lands \
within the district. IL was proposed, z
as part of the general plan of the
Nampa & Meridian irrigation district. Il
in Its contract with the United States =
government 10 provide for the proper
drainage, by the construction of a
drainage system, OF the lands thus a
affected. The decision says in part. q
Court Assesses Charges.
Where a contract is entered into {
between an irrigation district and the \
United States, providing among other =
things, that arid lands within the jur- Y
isdiction OF the irrigation district. in Y
order TO secure a fun water right y
from government project, shall be n
not TO exceed $75 per acre. n
such contract is subject TO the laws of y
this state governing irrigation dis e
tricts and to the apportionment OF u
benefits Hereunder. and the fixed q
charge to be assessed against the y
lands Of any particular land owner q
within such irrigation district for n
such water right will he finally de- n
terniined by the district court OF the n
judicial district within which said y
district is located, as pro- ~
vfded by sections 2400-2403, revised a
codes. =
Reclamation of Lands. "
THE dominant purpose OF our irri- IS
gatidn district law is TO facilitate the "a
economical and permanent reclama- q
ton of our arid lands, and 1t must be "
he constant aim of judicial construc- ,C
ion TO effectuate that purpose so far a
IS consistent with the whole body of =
)ur law The continued existence Of "
n irrigation district depends upon its n
lbility to furnish water to land al q