| Show irrigation difficulties WE WB HAVE haaz received some complaints from land owners in weber county who ho are owners of water rights in the hooper irrigating canal they submit a statement of facts and urgently request our opinion as to the legality of certain alleged proceedings the hooper Irrig irrigation stion company was organized about twenty three years ago under the laws of the territory and as we understand hats has not been incorporated the provisions of the ia law have haim been observed hitherto and an annual tax for improvements and the general expenses of the company hm has been levied on all the lands benefited by the canal this tax is made by law a lien not upon the land but upon the interest of the taxpayer in the canal and his right to the use of the katr atar flowing therein n the tax is levied by the landholders in the dl district by a minority vote at a meeting in december of tach each year notice of which must be given at least ten days preceding it appears that at the annual meeting of the company held last december the manner of levying the tax was changed instead of asse assessing hoing the lands to be benefited by the canal and its ito ditches the water right to one acre was changed to one share of ten dollars thin thi n an assessment of sixty five cents bents per share was made on all the capital stock thus created and payment was required by the list day of april 1891 with ith the proviso that if the assessment was not thus paid the stock of the delinquent would be sold on the of april it is complained that this is in a radical departure from the system authorized by law that no notice of the contemplated change was given to the land ow owners tiers that lands not benefited by the ditch are assessed by this new plan and thus an in injustice ustice is in done to the owners of such lands and that the whole ino movement to Is illegal if the facts are as stated we are of the opinion that the tax cannot be legally collected that the sale of alleged stock will not net take away any right which the landowner may have in the canal nor convey to the pur chaser any property in the canal or right to the use of lie its waters it to ie very clear that the law contemplates a tax only upon the lands to be benefited by the canal and that it is to be estimated by the acreage thus benefited and not by so many shares of capital stock this is to be seen in sections elections three and pour four of the act under which the company was organized sed compiled laws 1888 vol ii 11 p 48 they relate to the first meeting of the company it is true but section election fifteen w which bach provides for all subsequent meetings says the tax may be levied upon the lands benefited the landholders in the district to vote upon the same in the manner awe provided dy aj law irwill it will perhaps be contended that the landholders in regular meeting have the power to change all this but even if that be admitted it must be clear to every reasonable mind that no such radical change could be legally effected without due notice of such duch contemplated change to all the landholders of the irrigation district so that they might have the opportunity of voting upon that important question if no such notice was waa given we believe the action of the meeting so go far aa it changed the manner of levying and ass assessing eMing the tax will not hold good no matter how many voted for it the new method may be the better plan we do not pretend to decide as aa to that it may have been adopted to cure a defect in the old ld system but the whole aim of the law under which unincorporated irrigation districts and companies can be organized was directed to making the lands benefited and them on lythe on en ft a for water bervice could be levied it to is quite likely that dotting but a suit at aw will decide this question definitely an injunction against the trustees to prevent their selling belling water rights of a landholder who refuses to pay the tax thus illegally levied would perhaps be the most direct way to settle it we are of the opinion that the decision would be against the trustees because they have no powers but those given by law and the law emphatically states repeatedly that the inthe lands benefited are am those that may be taxed but cannot the trustees and the complaining pla ining luing parties meet and in a reasonable and friendly way decide this dispute it would be better for all concerned not to rush into the courts if right can be done without recourse to this extreme and expensive proceeding better not try to collect a tax irregular ly levied than to enter into litigation which will result in a failure to enforce it the hooper irrigation people ought to be able to settle this by amicable methods A correspondent in another part of the territory propounds them the following questions I 1 if an unincorporated irrigating company draft bylaws for said company and unanimously agree to sustain and place heir signatures thereto can the law co P ell any and au all sul auch signers to do according to such bylaws 2 if such a company make any agreement in conformity with the laws of the territory unanimously sustaining the same can any and au all such be compelled to do according to such an agreement 3 if the foregoing questions be answered in the affirmative what benefit would it be to such a company to incorporate as provided by law they not wishing to enter into a district inor apor aaion these questions are rattier rather vague and we are left same somewhat what in the dark as to their intent but we answer to the first two queries yes yea providing the agreements entered into relate to irrigation within the district and the matters provided for in the act of march 18 19 tn 1884 to the third query we answer we do not know and we do not under stand w why by wo we are asked to reply to such a question through the NEWS if the landholders land holders in the die brict triot do not want to incorporate that it appears to us to is the end of the matter nobody can compel them to incorporate and the provisions of the law which says they may do so was inserted merely to 0 make it clear that an irrigation company organized under that law were not barred from incorporating corp orating under the general rating law if they desired to do so 80 that is all |
