*1
John M. BARKER et WAGNER,
Lee of the Board of Directors of the American Falls Res- ervoir Defendant.
No. 11600.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
July 19, 1974.
Rehearing Sept. 6, Denied Nelson,
Thomas Parry, Robertson, G. Daly Larson, Falls, plaintiffs. & Twin Collins, William Manly, D. Collins & Boise, for defendant.
McQUADE, Justice. is an original proceeding This for a compel Wagner, Writ of Mandate to Lee of the Board of Directors of the American Falls Reservoir District (Secretary), give notice of two elections in the American Falls Reservoir District (District) which have been called its Board of pursuant Directors to the author- ity in contained 354.1 H.B.No. One elec- tion is approval enter- ing into a contract for construction replacement dam at Falls American Reservoir and issuance finance construction, and the other election approval imposing the District as- sessments on lands served the District for their share of construc- tion costs.
The American Falls Dam and the Amer- Storage ican Falls Reservoir are located on the Snake River Southern Idaho. original completed dam was and is government owned the United States part of project. a Federal Reclamation original construction of the dam was pursuant financed the District whereby contract with the United States purchased the District wa- 28.6% Sess.Laws, Ch. *2 total cost of the proportionate share agreed their capacity storage of the dam ter replacement dam. incurred in the the the United States of pay to to 28.6% the constructing dam. cost of has enacted Legislature The Idaho State au- which (1974), Laws ch. 1 Idaho Sess. Reclama- States Bureau of The United approval after irrigation districts thorizes original dam tion has determined qualified special of the election of a % has structurally longer sound is no improve voting, electors to reconstruct placed upon level maximum restrictions the of bonds for dams and to issue Currently the in the of water reservoir. Laws ch. the construction. Idaho Sess. of the at less than water level is set 67% indebted- provides that the bonded (1974) Further- storage capacity. usable water special a payable solely of ness be out shall continuing is to deteriorate more the dam shall irrigation into the which being level result the which will water as- (1) The of benefit deposit; future. reduced the district; by irrigation sessments the levied en- Payments pursuant to contracts (2) There are 35 entities (spaceholders) irri- private tered with other into capacity storage own shares of the water entities; the (3) proceeds from gation The original of the dam: pro- falling power sale use of water for irriga- including the 16 canal duction. private 2 in- companies, companies, tion presently Company, which Idaho Power Ir- dividuals and the Indian United States power operates hydroelectric a owns and rigation there Within District Service. the dam, offered plant original the has below companies rights to are 5 canal which have with falling water contract to enter into a delivery storage, the diversion and of wa- pro- proposed contract the The District. storage rights ter the Dis- out of the of Company would Power vides that Idaho spaceholders trict. The lands that the 35 falling for the District the use of to and require serve are arid in- production 40 annual power water for produce crops. $19,000,000 sufficient retire stallments government appro The federal has not fall- by the issued District. priated necessary the for the con approval contract water replacement struction of a dam. Con pro- by Secretary the of the Interior gress of the United has enacted States 93-206. vided Public Law public law 93-2062 which the authorizes the District The Board of Directors of Secretary the to enter into Interior special adopted calling for a a resolution agreement the with District for construc District’s electors election to submit the replacement upon tion of a dam and com a the enter into proposal a pletion replacement dam, title is to of the Interior contract with be transferred It United States. replacement a dam for construction of District, subject ap also authorizes the financed the issuance of bonds proval Interior, $30,000,000to the District in the amount of power with contract non-federal electric years the date of be retired within from producers falling the use for water indebtedness would issue. The bonded discharged by monetary re dam. The falling receipts a wa- through retired falling turn from the is to contract Compa- the Idaho Power ter contract with defray be used to of the cost of con ny, spaceholders with contracts other replacement struction of dam. Public proportionate share construc- their provides Law 93-206 also that the District costs, on lands tion assessments share may agreements enter into with other the District for spaceholders repayment by costs. them of of construction 28, 1973). (Dec. No. 93-206 Pub.Ii. facilities,
The Board adopted facilities, of Directors also navigation and air and, calling special resolution for a election to paying cost submit proposal to the may, District’s electors thereof regard any without limi- the District imposed, collect from the land tation herein with the assent of repre- served the District assessments qualified two-thirds of the electors vot- *3 senting ing share the an of at election to be held for that replacement purpose, construction costs therefor, of the dam. issue revenue bonds principal the and interest of be which to Although the Board of Directors has di- paid solely from revenue derived from rected give the notice of the of, rates charges and for the use and the election, bond election and the assessment by, service rendered such facilities as the Secretary give has refused to the no- may prescribed law, provided be by and tices. original pro- The District filed this further, any city political that other or ceeding compel for Writ of Mandate to may pur- subdivision of the own, state the Secretary give the notices the chase, construct, extend, equip, or within two elections. corporate and without the limits of such The Secretary contends that a ofWrit city subdivision, political sys- or water give Mandate ordering him to notice of the tems, sewage systems, elections should not be because the issued plants, treatment sewage and treatment proposed bonds in violation of art. 8 § plants, purpose paying and for the the of the provided of It Idaho Constitution. thereof, may, any regard cost without that, in art. 8 3§ imposed, limitation herein with the as- majority sent of a qualified of the elec- county municipal “Limitations on in- voting tors at an election to be held for county, city, debtedness.—No board of purpose, that issue revenue bonds there- education, district, or school or other for, principal the and interest of which state, any subdivision of the shall incur paid solely be from revenue derived indebtedness, manner, liability, any or in of, charges from rates and for the use any purpose, exceeding that and the sys- service rendered such year, provided the income and revenue tems, facilities, plants may for it for year, such without the assent prescribed law; provided further qualified of two-thirds of the electors district, any port that for the of voting thereof election to be held carrying any into effect all or of the unless, purpose, for that nor before ator powers granted port now or hereafter indebtedness, incurring the of time such state, may districts the laws of this provisions shall be made for the collec- contract indebtedness and issue revenue tion of an annual tax sufficient to indebtedness, evidencing bonds such the interest on such as it indebtedness without necessity the the voters of the of due, sinking falls and also to constitute port same, authorizing district the such for the principal of the payable solely revenue bonds to be thereof, thirty years within from the all or such of the of the revenues time of contracting Any the same. in- port any district derived from source liability contrary debtedness or incurred only excepting whatsoever those reve- provision to this shall be void: Pro- taxes, nues derived from ad valorem vided, that this section shall not be con- port may commission deter- thereof apply strued ordinary nec- mine, and such revenue bonds not to be essary expenses gener- authorized gen- any any manner or extent a provided al laws of the state and further obligation port eral issu- own, any purchase, that city may con- same, upon charge nor a the ad struct, extend, equip, with- port valorem tax revenue of such dis- corporate city, out the limits of such off facilities, parking street recreation trict.” proposed Irrigation that the visions contends state. they municipal corpora- art. 3 because have have been held
bonds violate
to be
8 §
tions
maturing
years
purposes
a maximum
date of 45
for the
art.
6 of the
7 §
provides
provides
whereas
that
Idaho Constitution
art. 8
bonds
which
§
Moreover,
legislature
years.
impose
must
state
shall not
mature within 30
taxes for
municipal corporations
Secretary argues
that
1972 amend-
but
the state
allows
municipal corporations
ment to art. 8
which increased the ma-
to authorize
to col-
§
turing period
years
of bonds from 20 to 30
lect their
taxes.4 It has
own
also been
includ- held
was invalid because
amendment
districts are
subjects
ed two
the Idaho
different
violation
Constitution which
§
provides
property
art. 20
It is
shall
no
Idaho Constitution.
there
qualifications
argued
proposed
also
are in
for electors.5
violation
there is
3 because
no
*4
Irriga-
In the case of Lewiston Orchards
provision for the collection
an annual
Gilmore,6
tion District v.
this Court was
pay
tax
the interest on
to
as it
similarly presented
problem
with the
of de-
falls due
sinking
and to constitute a
termining
irrigation
the character of
dis-
for
principal.
These
authority.
reconciling conflicting
tricts and
issues need
in this
two
not be decided
case
question
That case involved the
of whether
apply
since we
that
hold
not
acquired by
irrigation
does
land
an
district
§
exempt
failure to
assessments was
irrigation
here-
to
districts for the reasons
from state
art.
4
taxation under
7
§
in discussed.
irri-
Idaho Constitution.
It was held that
The
on
art. 8
limitation
indebtedness of
gation
municipal corpora-
districts are not
counties, cities,
applies
3
to
boards
ed-
§
exemption
tions for the
ucation, school
or
other subdivi-
state
ir-
taxation. The court characterized
sions
question
The
this
state.
follows,
rigation districts as
is
proceeding
irrigation
whether the
dis-
trict is a subdivision of the state.
carefully analyzed
“We have
and com-
pared
foregoing
authorities and oth-
In the case of
v.
Ir-
Boise-Kuna
Jensen
effect,
ers to similar
and have reached
rigation
argued
District3 it was
that a
therefrom the
irriga-
conclusion that an
irrigation
contract entered
into
dis-
tion
corporation
district is a
hav-
trict
ground
violated art. 8 3 on the
that
§
municipal
such
powers
incidental
expenses
the contract
would exceed the an-
necessary
are
management
its internal
ticipated revenues. The
did
Court
not
proper
and the
of its
conduct
business.
reach the constitutional
issue because it
primary purpose
Its
acquisition
is the
found
showing
that there was
no
operation
system
and
irrigation
of an
expense required by the
ex-
contract would
enterprise
a business
for the benefit of
irrigation
ceed the
district’s revenues. The
district,
land owners within the
such
by way
Court went on
state
of dictum
property being
held
trust for them in
that
irrigation
district is
anot
subdivi-
proprietary capacity,
secondarily
while
sion of the state as referred
in art. 8
§
incidentally
municipal pow-
certain
3.
ers have been
govern-
conferred for its
purposes
For the
of other constitutional
and,
regulation,
ment and
when this is
provisions, irrigation districts
been
have
mind, any seeming
borne in
confusion
municipal
held
corporations,
or subdi-
holding
conflict with the authorities
133,
(1954).
Idaho
Drainage
75
269 P.2d
5,
755
5. Ferbrache
v.
District No.
23
85,
(1912) ;
Irriga
Idaho
posed by irrigation are similar pur
special improvement assessments for poses be a tax which have been held not to 178 526 P.2d uniformity requirements within the Plaintiff-Appellant, LANGROISE, William H. Idaho Constitution.9 v.
Moreover, 3 requires, art. 8 § shall be made for “[Provisions al., Defendants- A. BECKER et Gene an annual tax sufficient Respondents. pay the interest indebtedness as on such No. 11352. due, it falls a sink also constitute princi Supreme fund for the Idaho. Court of pal . . .”' Sept. 23, 1974. speaks 3
Since art. 8 in terms taxes are not tax-
and since benefit assessments
es, applies general governmen- entities,
tal not entities such
districts which derive
benefit assessments. on
The limitation indebtedness of raising proce- applies to revenue
3§ specified governmental entities.
dures of raising pro- comparison
A revenue counties, cities,
cedures of educa- boards
tion and school districts with Id., Anderson, 697, 382, 7. P.2d at 9. Bosworth Groves, (1929) ; 43 Idaho P. Booth v. 703, P. & I.C. 43-404 §§ 43-701.