Concerned Irrigators v. Belle Fourche Irrigation District

Nos. 99-1895, 99-1922 (235 F.3d 1139) (8th Cir. January 2, 2001)

ELR Digest

The court holds that a South Dakota irrigation district's method of assessing construction debt and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to landowners within the district does not violate state or federal law. The landowners argued that the district's equal assessment of O&M costs and the proportional assessment of construction debt violated state law, which requires assessment to be made according to the benefit received.

The court first holds that the district court did not lack jurisdiction to review the district's method of assessment. The Administrative Procedure Act precludes review of federal discretionary setting of O&M standards. However, the landowners challenge decisions made by the district, not by the Secretary of the Interior or the Bureau of Reclamation. The court then holds that the district's contract with the Bureau of Reclamation provides a method of assessment and, thus, the district need not comply with the South Dakota requirement that assessments should be made according to the benefit received. The district need not assess the landowners according to the benefit received if the district's contract with the Bureau of Reclamation requires a different method of assessment. A 1971 contract with the Bureau of Reclamation established the method of assessment in use by the district. The lack of judicial confirmation of the contract as required by federal law does not invalidate the 1971 contract because the United States never attempted to escape any obligation under the contract. Further, even though a majority of landowners did not vote in favor of the contract, it is still valid. Because the 1971 contract was supplementary to two earlier contracts and because it did not change the amount owed to the United States, the district hadthe power to authorize the contract, and the landowner vote was largely unnecessary. Moreover, a 1984 contract between the district and the Bureau of Reclamation does not supersede the 1971 contract. The court also holds that the district did not violate federal law by failing to equitably apportion construction costs according to the land's productive value. The district's proportional assessment of construction debt based on land class does not violate the federal standard that construction charges be apportioned equitably.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (13 pp., ELR Order No. L-316).

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Duncan McGregor
Viken, Viken, Pechota, Leach & Dewell
1617 Sheridan Lake Rd., Rapid City SD 57702
(605) 341-4400

Counsel for Defendants
Marty J. Jackley
Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson
440 Mt. Rushmore Rd., 3d & 4th Fls., Rapid City SD 57709
(605) 342-1078

[31 ELR 20364]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]