Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1927-07-19
COURT TOACT
in LIABILITY
FOR SEEPACE
Appeals Judge Holds
District Liable; De-
cision of Supreme
Body Awaited
Especial TO The Herald.l

ARPNtial 70
EDTNBURG, Tex, July l9.-That
the question of whether irrigation
districts can be held liable for dam
age TO land caused viii be passed
upon by the state supreme court this
fall is indicated in the action taken
Saturday by the court Of civil ap-
peals at San Antonio in overruling
the motion for a new trial filed Dy
the defendants in the case Of John
HOlderbaum, CT al, vs.. Hidalgo Coun-
ty Water Improvement District No.
Valley attorneys. who have been
closely following this case, ssase
that the decision Of the supreme
court will be Of far reaching effect
insofar as irrigation districts are
concerned, and that il the decision
o: the court Of civil appeals is sus-
tanned il may be followed By con
siderable litigation inaugurated by
water users whose lands have been
damaged by seepage from irrigation
canals or from other causes in which
they may deem the districts liable.
The case upca which the court of
civil appeals based its decision was
filed in the district court of Hidalgo
county last year, the plaintiff seek
ing compensation 10 the amount Of
80 900 fer alleged damage 10 lands
sustained through seepage. Attor-
reys For the irrigation district filed
general demurrer. and their special
exception to the effect that an irri-
cation district. like the state or
county. could not be sued for dam
ages. was sustained by the district
court.
The case was appealed. and the
lower court was reversed upon the
point of law involved in the case.
Two motions for rehearing were
filed. bu. both were overruled. and
the question of law is expected to 90
before the state supreme court. This
viii be TIE first time that the ques-
tiOn involved has ever been submit
ted 10 an appeals court in the United
States. ard the decision is expected
TO be Of far-reaching Importance to
irrigation interests throughout the
country.
II the decision cf the court Of ap-
peals L. sustained. thereby settling
the question relative to the liability
OF an irrigation district for dam
ages sustained hy the plaintiff. the
case will again be bl fought before the
district court.
an Interesting Decision
Associate Justice Edward W.
Smith. who wrote the decision, takes
the view that the functions OF an ir-
legation district are dissimilar from
those Of the state or county, his con-
tention being 10 the effect that the
irrigation districts are organized for
profit as well as public service. lie
contends that they are in the same
class of municipal corporations as
cities, and are therefore liable for
damages. In this connection Judge
Smith states:
Primarily. water improve
ment district j. in no better posi-
tion than city Is when exercising
its purely local powers and duties.
Its general purposes are essentially
public IN their nature, but are only
incidentally 20; those purposes may
be likencd to those Of a city which
y operating a water works system.
or an irrigation system. A water
ing: il has and furnishes no facii-
tiles. for the administration Of the
sovereign government. Its officers
have no power or authority TO exer-
else any of the functions of the gen.
eral government, or to enforce any
of the laws of the state or any of its
subdivisions, or collect taxes other
than those assessed by the district
They have 20 more power or author
ity than that OF the officers Of a
private corporation organized for
ike purposes. As a practical mat
ter the primary objects and purposes
Of such Districts are of q purely LEGAL
nature. for the district il created
and operated for the sole benefits OF
IT, members: and MI analysis Of
those objects and purposes discloses
that they directly benefit only the
landowners who reside within and
whose lands form part OF the dis
Continued on page two.i