Court Opinion

ID: 9856407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:46:53.164708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:43.673572
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority in affirming that the appellant irrigation district is liable for damages proximately caused to plaintiff’s properties by its negligence. However, for the reasons stated below I am in agreement with the ruling of the trial court that cross-appellant James Baldwin is barred from recovery by the Idaho Tort Claims Act (hereinafter Act), and therefore dissent.
I.C. § 6-906 pertaining to tort claims against “Political subdivisions” specifically requires that all claims must be presented and filed with the clerk or secretary of the subdivision within 120 days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered. The trial court found that Baldwin had failed to provide notice of his claim within this time period and thus dismissed his action. At issue here is whether an irrigation district, properly organized under the laws of this state, I.C. § 43-101 et seq., is a “political subdivision” within the meaning of I.C. § 6-906.
I.C. § 6-902(2) states:
“As used 'in this act: * * * ‘Political subdivision’ means any county, city, municipal corporation, school district, special improvement or taxing district, or any other political subdivision or public corporation.”
According to the majority an irrigation district does not fall within this definition, apparently for three reasons: (1) because it has not been characterized as a municipal or public corporation by prior decisions of this Court; (2) because a “public corporation” is distinguished by the exercise of its powers for the public good and an irrigation district benefits only its shareholders; and (3) because the legislature, in failing to specifically identify irrigation districts among the enumerated generic categories of I.C. § 6-902(1) (2), must have intended its exclusion.
The majority is correct in its statement that prior opinions have termed irrigation districts as “quasi-municipal corporations,” Tingwall v. King Hill Irr. Dist., 66 Idaho 76, 155 P.2d 605 (1945); Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304 (1911); Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381 (1913); Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, 136 P. 618 (1913); and as “quasi-public corporations,” Hale v. McCammon Ditch Co., 72 Idaho 478, 244 P.2d 151 (1951); Stephenson v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 49 Idaho 189, 288 P. 421 (1930); Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905 (1905); Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., 37 Idaho 300, 216 P. 250 (1923). It is also the case, however, that this Court has in numerous prior opinions characterized irrigation districts as “public corporations.” Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, supra; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Briggs, 27 Idaho 84, 147 P. 75 (1915); Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377, 23 P.2d 720 (1933); and as “municipal corporations,” Oregon *589Short Line R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 578, 102 P. 904 (1909); Gem Irr. Dist. v. VanDeusen, 31 Idaho 779, 176 P. 887 (1918); Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., supra; Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946 (1920). In addition, they have been called “quasi-corporations, public in nature.” Chandler v. Drainage Dist. No. 2, 68 Idaho 42, 187 P.2d 971 (1947), “not a public service corporation” but a “mutual cooperative corporation,” Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Briggs, supra; and “public quasi-corporations,” Strickfaden v. Greencreek Hwy. Dist., 42 Idaho 738, 248 P. 456 (1926); City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979 (1911).
Rather obviously, this diversity of opinion provides little assistance in resolving the issue before us. One could, of course, choose from among the above description that which we deem most appropriate. Such, however, would misrepresent the duty of court which, as I see it, is to glean the legislative intent from the provisions of the statute. Since the Act expressly enumerates several entities subject to its provisions, we gain some insight by comparing the characteristics of an irrigation district with those of the enumerated entities. See Barker v. Wagner, 96 Idaho 214, 526 P.2d 174 (1974).
Foremost among those enumerated is the category of “public corporations.” It is the majority’s opinion that the dispositive element is whether the appellant’s purpose can be said to be “for the welfare of the general public,” which it deems to be the essential characteristic of a public corporation. I do not agree that the demarcation between public and private entities turns upon this purpose. Even assuming the appropriateness of the standard, I question its application by the majority here.
While it is true that irrigation districts are designed to serve a specific purpose for a limited clientele, it does not necessarily follow that such service is beyond the scope of the public welfare in general. An irrigation district is a non-profit enterprise, albeit a business, serving a finite geographic area within which all landowners are both potentially benefited by its services and subject to its assessments. In this respect it is no different than a highway district, school district or even a municipality or county insofar as it has limited powers generally applicable within geographic boundaries. In addition, I.C. § 43-304 expressly provides that “[t]he use of all water required for the irrigation of the lands of any district * * * is hereby declared to be a public use.” I.C. § 43-908 grants to irrigation districts the power of eminent domain, a power usually granted only to “public” entities. However limited the purpose of an irrigation district, it is a purpose which in my opinion is conducive to the general welfare and analogous to that served by any other public corporation. See Chandler v. Drainage Dist. No. 2, supra.
The majority cites in support of its conclusion on this issue Barker v. Wagner, supra, and Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v. Gilmore, supra, wherein the primary purpose of an irrigation district is said to be the “operation of an irrigation system as a business enterprise.” What the majority fails to note, however, is that despite this characterization, Lewiston Orchards, cited as controlling in Barker, specifically states that “an irrigation district is a public corporation.” Thus, even by the majority’s own standard, it would appear that irrigation districts are public corporations within the meaning of I.C. § 6-902(2).
In my opinion the better test for deciding what is and what is not a “public corporation” was stated by this Court in Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, supra. Therein it was said:
“It is settled law that irrigation districts are public corporations although not strictly municipal in the sense of exercising governmental functions other than those connected with raising revenue to *590defray the expense of constructing and operating irrigation systems and the conduct of business of the district, (citations omitted)
sic íjí * ‡ ‡ Hi
“One of the essential attributes of a public corporation, as distinguished from a private corporation, is that membership in the former is involuntary and based upon some geographical or similar classification, while membership in the latter is based on consent. * * * It is clear that irrigation districts as public corporations are not based upon consent of all the members and may include lands without the consent of the owner entry-man.” 25 Idaho at 124, 136 P. at 621.
The continuing vitality of this standard is, in my judgment, apparent in the instant action and by it I would find the appellant irrigation district a public corporation subject to the limitations of the Tort Claims Act.
The fact that the legislature failed to specifically identify irrigation districts among those political subdivisions listed in I.C. § 6-902(2) is irrelevant. The proper rule of construction in this case is one ejusdem generis and not expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The statute clearly sets forth a residual category intended to include all other “public corporations” not enumerated. As the foregoing analysis indicates, it is my opinion that irrigation districts are indeed public corporations, in the statute and being of the same general nature and class as those things enumerated are intended to be included therein.
The definition of a “taxing district,” which is enumerated by the statute as a “political subdivision,” also includes irrigation districts. Idaho Code provisions pertaining to the powers of irrigation districts are replete with sections authorizing irrigation districts to levy and collect taxes. See I.C. §§ 43-315, 43-321, 43-328 through 334, 43-701 et seq. This Court has recognized irrigation districts as “municipal corporations” within the meaning of art. 7, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution for taxing purposes. Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., supra; Gem Irr. Dist. v. VanDeusen, supra; and perhaps most importantly, the case of Lister v. Riddle, 50 Idaho 431, 296 P. 771 (1931) specifically declares a drainage district [a subdivision of an irrigation district, I.C. § 43-307] to be a “taxing district.”
I am further persuaded in my conclusion that the Idaho Tort Claims Act applies to irrigation districts by a review of the history of the law of torts as it pertained to irrigation districts prior to passage of the Act. In Eldridge v. Black Canyon Irr. Dist., 55 Idaho 443, 43 P.2d 1052 (1935) this Court held that an irrigation district is liable for its torts and those of its agents by the same rule of liability imposed upon a municipal corporation. See also, Noon v. Gem Irr. Dist., 205 F. 402 (D.Idaho 1913). In so holding the court implicitly exempted irrigation districts, like municipalities, from the sovereign immunity defense then available in suits against the state. Since then, the legislature has not only authorized suits in tort against the state but has also brought within the limitations of its provisions municipalities and other like public corporations. I believe it thereby intended to embrace within those new rules all governmental entities previously regarded with parallel status by the tort laws of this state. In sum, I would find the appellant a public corporation and a taxing district within the intent of I.C. § 6-902(2), and therefore subject to the time limitations of I.C. §§ 6-906.