The Record-courier. [volume] (Gardnerville, Nev.) 1904-current, 1924-01-04


State Engineer. The conn ensation O
the Commissioner Is paid pro rat
by the lands served. II is not showl
that the distribution of water b,
this method Is unsatisfactory, or tina
any better distribution would resul
from a Commissioner under the sup
eryision of the District. On the fac
of 1t 1t would appear that the dis
tribution under the supervision of
disinterested third party Is the bes
plan.
In Knowles VS.. New Sweden Irr
Dist. 101 Pac. 81 the Court says:
Here appellant is the owner
of sufficient water rights and
privileges to irrigate his lands,
and the irrigation of other lands
In the District can not aid him
or render any benefit to his
lands, and 1t cannot benefit him
to furnish the water he already
owns and is entitled to use"
ut is suggested that although
a landowner might own a water
right. still he might be benefit
ted in some measure by being in
cluded for the reason he might
be able to secure better service
or something of that kind.
think that this proposition is cor
rect but the statement Is mis-
leading in the present case for
the reason that the record affirm
atively shows that appellant al
ready had a sufficient water right
and was receiving full and salts
factory service and that he has
received no different or no bet
ter service from the District.
Under such circumstances 1t Is
clearly apparent that there would
be no basis for including such
lands within the District or levy
ing an assessment"
Counsel for the District argues
that a judgment of this Court ex
eluding the lands of petitioner woulC
serve as a precedent to the with
drawal of large proportion o.
other land having the same priori
ties and thus work a destruction
of the District and the vast goot
it might do. While this view give
the question great Importance an,
serves as an admonition to thu
Court against an ERRONEOUS con
elusion. 1t cannot influence the re
suit. II the Court could see any
benefit at all the petitioners land:
by the provisions of an additiona
water supply or improved distribu
tion, it would deny relief here, leav
ing the matter of the measure of the
benefit to be equitably adjusted wher
a tax was imposed.
This decision does not automatical.
ly affect any other than lands o.
petitioner. Whether other lands can
be withdrawn will depend upon the
record made in the other cases il
there are any. If the preservation
of the District depends its ability tC
include and tax lands beyond the
benefits conferred. then it does not
deserve preservation. II, on the other
hand, lands are excluded from the
District and continue to derive some
direct benefit therefrom which they
are absolved from paying any part
of the cost thereof, then, the ex-
clusion of such lands works to the
destruction of the District.
The writer cannot, on the record
made, bring himself to the con
clusion that the exclusion of petit.
toner's lands will so operate-assum'
ing that the District does all it con
templates doing-as to give 20 said
lands any other benefit that they are
not getting and entitled to get al
the present time.
1t is therefore ordered that the
Order of the Board of Directors Of
said Irrigation District refusing tC
exclude the lands described In tht
petition herein be, and the sane Il
hereby set aside, and said land;
are directed to be excluded by sale
Board after the pro rata liability
of said lands to said District FOR aEy
legitimate expense heretofore incur
red has been paid to said District
Neither party Is to recover costs.