The Oakley herald. [volume] (Oakley, Idaho) 1908-1961, 1923-09-21

t-duhct QCDt dRatH0t tuC ui1tiitt diit
makes those lands that are willing
and able TO pay their annual taxes
free from further obligation for de-
linquencies OF other lands and liable
on,y for their portion, determined by
the number of acre feet allotted, o.
the total indebtedness, and not as
was so much feared that the land
that paid its assessments would
eventually hive to pay off the total
bonded Indebtedness.
The award was result of an ction
started in the State Supreme court
by James Everett Nelson of Bounti-
full. water user In the Bonneville
Irrigation District who mad paid his
taxes Tor the year 1892, asking that
the Bonneville Irrigation District
and county commissioners of Davis
county be enjoined from adding de-
ficits upon interest or sinking funds
OF the bonded Indebtedness to the
1928 levy and to test the legality of
the directors of the district and the
county commissioners in making
sacn deficit levy.
History Of the Case
For the year 1922 the directors o.
tie district fixed budget, to meet
the expenses of the district pay in-
terest on the bonded indebtedness
and establish sinking fund for lis
retirement The budget was certi-
fled to by the county commissioners
and fifteen per cent added to meet
oelinquencies. whichw ere expected
to occur. The total assessment for
1922 was s122 ,S6475, only s1s.-
573.23 of which was paid, which,
when the receipts we're divided pro-
pcrtionately to the interest, sinking
fund and administrative needs. the
district found itself facing deficit
for 1922 of S35,526.61 for bond in
terest and s14,S02.75 for sinking
fund requirements. Therefore, IN
making the 1928 budget the direc-
tors took into consideration this
1922 deficit and added 1t to the esti-
mated needs of the district for the
year 1923 The commissioners added
the Is per cent authorized by law to
cover delinqquencies and prepared to
collect q tax on the entire allotted
acre feet. 1t was here that Mr.. Mel
son, a landowner In the district, who
had paid his tax for the year 1922,
felt that he, along with the other ,
landowners of the district who had
paid their taxes for the year 1922,
WIS not getting justice and institu-
ted prohibition proceedings.
The foregoing most welcome and
beneficial award resulted.
No reference was made in the de-
cision in this case as to the validity
OF the bonds, but in determining that
this is local improvement and spe-
cial Improvement levy rather than
the much feared blanket debt is
great load lifted from the minds of
the landowners in the district.
Much has been said by landowners
Dn the Oakley project relative to the
ia bility whichmight be assumed IN
voting for band issue. AS stated
e.etofore the Idaho laws in connec-
ion with the issuance of bonds by
IN irrigation district are much more
iefinite than the laws of Utah, such I
Gaho laws setting forth the fact 5
hat an irrigation district bond rs (
-,nilar TO the bond issue of public
district IT, then, the T
Jtah courts will hold that there is
20 blanket liability, or no liability i.
or another land owenr's taxes, is il
ot only fair 10 assume thar the Ida
o courts will hold similarly, espe-
tally where the Idaho law in the
latter is so much more definite?
ine petition for an election TO
cite on the organization of an Ir-
cation District in include the pat "
ited lands on the Oakley project
as formally presented 10 the Coun- ID
! Commissioners of Cassia county Il