The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-08-24

STATUTE exempt lIOul BShCi al ee'4N~
ton, said the court in its decision,
sis not relieved from liability for as
for the construction OF a |
drainage system required to protect I
the lands under it from becoming al
kaline or water-logged, for the drain
age of land where such canal or ditch
company contributes by seepage or
otherwise to make such drainage sys-
TEN necessary
District No. ! of Canyon county
was organized more than year ago
for the purpose of draining several
thousand acres of land between En-
NETT and New Plymouth in the Pay
cite valley. In making the assessment
the commissioners assessed the canal
company $4,000 and the ditch COM
pany 100000 it being held that both
corporations were relieved from the
responsibility for damage done to low
lands from seepage, saturation from
the canal on high land, and the nee
essity for carrying off waste water
from the canal
Both the canal and ditch companies
brought action in the district court IN
Canyon county seeking to annul or
set aside the assessments made
against them by the commissioners OF
the drainage district. They won their
case and the court issued an order re-
lieving them from having to make any
payments toward the construction OF
the system.
The opinion was written by Chief
Justice c. J. Sullivan, and concurred
in by Judge Morgan. Judge Bulge
sat at the hearing but took no part
in the decision.
In making the assessment against
the ditch and drainage companies the
commissioners of the Canyon county
district based their action on section
of the original drainage law OF 1913,
and section 9 of the amendment made
to the drainage law by the legislature
in 1915 The court, by its decision,
gives power to any drainage district
organized in the state to assess and
collect a proportionate share of the
cost of building a system against any
ditch or canal company operating in
Idaho.
1t was held by Chief Justice Sulli-
van that the question as to whether
or not such assessments are arbitrary,
unjust and void because of the amount
assessed against the two companies
in Canyon county by the commission
ers of the district was not before the
court, it being solely the duty OF the
court to determine whether or not any
assessments whatever against the cor
porations could be legally made, the
court not attempting to decide what
might be a reasonable or unreason-
able assessment.
In declaring that the state legisla-
ture had the authority under the con-
stitution to provide for the assessment
for the construction of a drainage sys-
TEN, the court pointed out that high
lands are responsible for all damages
resulting to lower lands from seepage
and saturation by irrigation water.
Said the court:
where water escapes either by
seepage or percolatiOn from ditch or
canal to the injury of another, and a
drainage system is necessary to pro-
tect the lower land from becoming
alkaline or waterlogged, proper as
sessments may be made against such
canal or ditch to assist in the con-
struction of a drainage system that
will protect lower lands from damage
because of such seepage or percola-
ton"
Chief Justice Sullivan in summing
up the decision of the court said in
part:
Suppose that one-half of the land
in this drainage district was made
worthless by reason Of percolation
and seepage from said canals, and
suppose also, that said canals were
properly constructed and operated
that there was no negligence in either
construction or operation; and thai
by reason thereof the land owners
could not recover damages from those
companies.
Would it not appear to be contrary
to the public policy of the state t
hold that those companies could no
be required to pay their proportion
ate part of the cost of a drainage sys
TEN to protect the land owners iron
the seepage and overflow waters o
such canals?
THE canals being physically res
ponsible for much of the injury don
to such lands, ought these cOmpanie
not, in justice and equity, be require
to pay their proportionate part of tn
cost for constructing a drainage sys
TEN to carry off the seepage and ovel
flow waters from their systems?
1t is a well recognized fact thi
under many of the irrigation system
in our state thousands of acres OF Ian
which were reclaimed from an AR
condition and which for a time pre-
duced valuable crops, have now b.
come alkalined or waterlogged al
! thus ruined, and grow nothing bl
. willows and tules because of the see
4 age of waters from canals and Il
! irrigation of higher lands. 1t is ce
! tainly not the public policy of Il
! state to permit thousands, if not hui
! dreds of thousands of acres of lan'
! that were once productive, to be rui
! ed and made worthless, and leave Il
owners thereof remediless.
! 1T is only equitable and just tn
all who cause or assist in causiI
damage to, or the ruination of, SUI
I lands, pay their proportionate part
I the cost of a drainage system to pr
! tect the lower lands from being ma
I worthless.
! 1T is clearly the policy of the sta
! IN have tba prpaf IRRIGATION cphpm