Court Opinion

ID: 9668083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:01:52.690861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:42.901941
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority opinion that to the extent irrigable land enjoys a higher valuation than other land, that value may be assessed for taxation purposes. I write specially, however, to express my concern over how irrigability becomes a relevant consideration when assessing agricultural land values, and what should be considered in determining irrigability.
The majority opinion correctly points out that the implementation of an irrigation system is not, in and of itself, a proper classification for assessment purposes. Ir-rigability of the land is, however, a proper criteria to be considered in the assessment. The inquiry then becomes: How does the Board of Equalization “factor in” the land’s irrigability? The designation of land actually under irrigation may, of course, seem obvious. But essentially, most crop land is irrigable, given the proper quantity and quality of water. As the trial court pointed out in its findings, “the availability of water and variance of classes of water rights greatly affects the ... capacity to irrigate from year to year.”
The process of land valuation has entered the computer age.. The Director of Equalization records the ownership of real property and forwards sales information to the Department of Revenue. This information, along with information from soil survey maps and crop capability ratings, are used to calculate the average dollar values per acre. We approved use of this information in Refusal of State Board of Equalization, 330 N.W.2d 754 (S.D.1983), and Mortenson v. Stanley County, 303 N.W.2d 107 (S.D.1981).
Using this computer technology, I am convinced the necessary irrigation information can be factored in the assessment valuation without amendment of the present statutory directives. SDCL 10-6-33.1. I believe, however, this information must include the availability and the quality of the water rights. Additionally, the type of irrigation system available, be it center pivot, ditch and gravel flow, galed pipe, spreader *114dams or subsoil irrigation, appears relevant to some extent in the equation.
I agree that the formula Butte County officials used in this case was not supported by the evidence. With the caveats mentioned above, I concur with the majority opinion.