The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1916-08-24
CANALS MAY Be TAXED FOR
DRAINAGE
Continued from Page H.

The syllabus of the decision settinI
forth the construction of the law b.
the court follows:
One. A canal or ditch company cor
poration not organized for profit ant
by statute exempt from general taxa
ton, is not relieved from liabilit,
for assessments for the construction
of drainage system required to pro
tect the lands under it from becoming
alkaline or water-logged, for the
drainage of land where such canal
or ditch company contributes by seep-
age or otherwise to make such drain
age system necessary.
Two. Held. that the assessment
made by the commissioners, so far as
the waste ditch is concerned, is not
directly against such ditch, but
against the corporation by reason of
its being relieved Of the necessity or
burden of maintaining such waste
ditch, or keeping it in repair.
Three. Special benefits for which
a canal or ditch company may be as
sessed, as distinguished from general
benefits,are whatever increase the val
ne of the land or easement or re-
lieve it from a burden.
Four. Held, that the rights of way
of the respondents are easements,an
it was proper for the commissioners
to consider each right of way as one
entire easement, and the provisions
of section (Sess. l., 1918, p. 63) does
not require that each right Of way or
easemena shall be divided up into
small parcels and the assessment fixed
against each parcel.
Five. Held that the question as to
whether such assessments are arbi-
trary, unjust and void because of the
amounts assessed is not before this
court The question presented is as
to whether any assessment whatever
against such corporation can be leg
ally made under the facts of this case
Six. The question Of the reason
ableness or unreasonableness of the
levied against the respon-
dents is a matter that the law has
provided may be determined on
the trial of the issues of fact before
a jury under proper instructions, and
the determination of the commission
ers must be construed as prima facie
correct as to the amount of such as
sessments until the proper court has
held otherwise.
Seven. Held, that the word "res-
as used in section ga, (Sess.
l.. 1915, p. 124, to-wit, that "such
ands are responsible for damages to
over lands from seepage and satura-
ion by irrigation water" may be
to mean physical RESPONSE
,ility whether legally liable for dam
lges under the law or not.
Eight. Held, that the legislature
las authority under the provisions of
he constitution to provide for as
easements for the construction of a
lrainage system in drainage district
md make all lands or easements with
n such districts subject to such as
essments that are physically respon-
ible for damages that result from
eepage or percolation of water from
ands or canals or easements therein.
Nine. Where water escapes either
y seepage or percolation from
itch or canal to the injury of another ,
nd drainage system is necessary to j
rotect the lower land from becoming /
lkaline or water-logged, proper as |
essments may be made against such {
anal or ditch to assist in the con- s
.ruction of drainage system that |
i'll protect lower lands from damage G
scause of such seepage or percola-
on.
The case is now remanded to the
anyon county district court for adj l
dication of the assessments levied c
yainst the ditch companies, and will S
me up at the September term. AT n
at term it is hoped to settle the Pat o
n and Stuart cases, in which those a
'ntlemeA seek to have taken out Of ii
e distr4ss certain lands owned by q