Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138555
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:31:53+00:00

Document:
173 ropolitan Water District Act of Utah.124 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was formed under a somewhat similar statute.126 Importance attaches to the financing aspect of irrigation dis- trict statutes. Most of them authorize the creation of a gen- eral obligation by the district in favor of bondholders, or pro- vide for repayment contract obligations under Reclamation Law.126 The district thus may impose assessments on all as- sessable lands in the district until a bond or comparable con- tract capital debt is retired. By this means, cumulative as- sessments may be made against district lands to meet defi- ciencies arising from nonpayment of assessments by some land- owners.127 The Oregon case of Yancey v. Noble is representative of the majority view respecting this sort of cumulative assessments.128 Provision for such assessments, strengthening the position of bondholders and facilitating financing of irrigation undertak- ings, has been referred to as the "last honest acre doctrine," "9 and as the "inexhaustible taxing power."130 But it may be noted that an inexhaustible taxing power is not always the equivalent of an inexhaustible tax-collecting power.131 A minority view will not permit recurring assessments to meet delinquencies in servicing bond issues. Representative m Utah Code Ann. 1943, § 100-10-1 et seq. The constitutionality of this statute was upheld in Lehi City v. Meling, 87 Utah 237, 48 Pac. 530 (1935). MB3 Deering's General, Laws of Calif., p. 3747 et seq., and 1947 Supp. p. 270 et seq. See also, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, History and First Annual Report, pp. 26-40 (1939). 126 See, e. g., Remington Rev. Stats, of Wash., 1932, §§ 7402-172, 7402-175. MT It should be noted here that under Reclamation Law the construction cost obligation must be included in a "general repayment obligation of the organization." Act of August 4,1939, § 9(d), 53 Stat. 1187,1195, 43 U. S. C. 485h(d). 138116 Ore. 356, 241 Pac. 336 (1925). 129 Rosebud Land & Improvement Co. v. Carterville Jrr. Dish, 102 Mont. 465, 472, 58 P. 2d 765, 768 (1936). "° See dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Pla. 200, 218,150 So. 508, 515 (1933). M1 See, e. g., Snower v. Hope Drainage Dist., 2 F. Supp. 931, 934 (D. C. Mo., 1933), where the district pleaded its difficult financial situation, floods, droughts, decline in land values and farm products, and inability of land- owners to pay their taxes-all making collection impossible.

References: v. 
 § 100
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v.