 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper5/26/1999
Twin Falls, March 1999 Term
Opinion No. 58
Frederick C. Lyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. James C. Herndon, District Judge; appeal from the Snake River Basin Adjudication Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Daniel C. Hurlbutt, District Judge.
Appeal from motion granting summary judgment. Affirmed.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment and entering foreclosure of assessment liens in favor of the Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Company (ASCC), pursuant to Chapter 22, Title 42 of the Idaho Code. We affirm.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Facts
In 1969, George and LaVaudis Peiper (the Peipers) purchased agricultural property in Bingham County. The Peiper property is located within the ASCC irrigation system, and the Peipers' predecessor was a stockholder of the ASCC. The ASCC is an operating company created under the Carey Act of 1894, 43 U.S.C. ยง 641.
The Carey Act aided states in the reclamation of desert lands to provide irrigation water to settlers by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to contract to patent such desert lands as the State should cause to be irrigated and occupied, provided, however, that the lands would be restored to the public domain if reclamation had not begun and plans were not carried out within stated time limits. See Andrus v. Idaho, 445 U. S. 715, 717-18 (1980). Since ""the average farmer did not have sufficient means to construct, own, or operate an irrigation ditch to convey water to his land,"" the creation of Carey Act canal companies ""made possible the distribution of water over large areas of land, often remote from the source of supply, and increased the availability of irrigated farmland at reasonable costs."" Jacobucci v. District Court, 541 P.2d 667, 671 (Colo. 1975).
ASCC's by-laws provide that the transfer of a stockholder's land operates as a transfer of the stock and the corresponding right to use ASCC water, ""whether expressed therein or not."" When the Peipers purchased the property, all irrigation water was supplied by a well installed by their predecessor. The Peipers investigated the possibility of irrigating with ASCC water, but found that the ditch connecting the property to the ASCC headgate had been destroyed a few years before. The Peipers sought permission to install a new ditch, but the owner of the intervening land was using wheel lines to irrigate, and told the Peipers they ""could forget about putting in another [ditch]."" The Peipers have requested no water from the ASCC since purchasing the land, and the ASCC has delivered no water to the property since 1962. ASCC has always been able to deliver water to the Peipers at Headgate No. M-21-5, located approximately three-quarters of a mile from the Peiper property. The ASCC has continued to assess maintenance charges against the Peipers.
B. Procedural Background
On December 24, 1986, ASCC filed suit against the Peipers in Bingham County Case No. CV-86-13282, seeking foreclosure of liens for assessments levied against the property for 1983, 1984 and 1985. The Peipers filed an answer on February 12, 1987. On December 16, 1991, the Peipers moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The motion was denied. On October 2, 1992, ASCC filed its second amended complaint in Bingham County Case No. CV-90-13836, seeking recovery of assessments for the years 1984 through 1990. The district court dismissed the claims f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|