The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1923-03-13

among other things, said:
"The most serious question IS
whether or not the apportionment Tor
benefits and assessment for drainage
can be sustained. The assessment Tor
drainage is a fiat rate OF 81 per acre
on all the lands in the district. This
was done on the theory that the cost
of the drainage can be charged to OPP
Grating expense and prorated among
the land owners OF the district ike any
other operating expense. Respondent
had no more right to assess the cost
OF the drainage system TO the lands
REGARDLESS OF benefits than it had to
assess the cost OF the irrigation dis
trict in the same way. The method
admittedly adopted for assessing the
land for drainage was clearly in viola
ton OF the statute. An assessment
Of ali lands OF the district on the basis
az fiat rate can be made only Tor
maintenance and operating charges.
Such a method OF assessment cannotl
BE resorted 10 in order to pay Tor the
construction OF the irrigation or drain
age system. II the land is TO be as
scssed for drainage by the respondent
under its present organization, It must
he done on the basis Of benefits, IN
strict compliance with the provisions
Of the irrigation law by virtue OF
which respondent exists and by which
It is governed.
"If respondent were organized as a
drainage district. more equitable
method of assessing the cost OF the
drainage system could be adopted, to-
wit. assessing the wet lands according
to benefit and the dry lands according
to contribution. The authority to Gre
ate the two sorts Of districts is grant
ed by entirely different and separate |
statutes. and the proceedings Tor the
creation OF the two are separate and
different in many particulars The
court has no authority to make
drainage district out OF an irrigation
district by mere judicial fat If the
land comprised within respondent ir-
r;gation district could be. and should |
be. now organized into drainage dis
trict by complying with the drainage
statute. the drainage project already
constructed could be taken over under
c. s. Sec. 1883, and assessments could
be made for contribution as well as
for benefits. AS to whether that can
be done at this stage of the proceed
ings, we express no opinion, as the
matter is not squarely before us and
has not been presented by counsel.
That portion of the judgment which
relates to the assessment of lands for
drainage purposes is reversed.
From the foregoing decision, IT is
clear that an irrigation district has no
power to do drainage other than by
the following rules: |, the land drained
must be found to need drainage; 2
all assessments made by the irrigation
district for doing drainage must be
charged against the land drained and
that land only.
Had the Boise project been organ
zed into an irrigation district under
he recent efforts to so organize it,
hose lands lying in the high areas
hove the Arena, Deer Flat and Will
Ter communities could not have been
assessed one dollar for the cost OF
lrainage of those communities but
Arena, Wilder and Deer Flat would
lave paid the entire cost of the drain
ge.
The supreme court, in its opinion,
learly points out that the irrigation
istrict possesses no power to levy as
essmentS on the theory OF contribu
ion which means assessing the high
lnds which contribute to the seeping S
( the lower lands. Had the irrigation {
istrict been organized and the asso-
iation abandoned the settlers would
ave abandoned the only organization !
hitch has authority TO do drainage and !