Sleeper v. Board of Supervisors

FINCH, P. J.

Petitioner makes original application to this court for a writ of mandate requiring respondents to establish the boundaries of a proposed county water district sought to be organized under the County Water District Act approved June 10, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 1049), and to call an election “for the purpose of determining whether such water district shall be incorporated.”

[745]

A petition for the formation of such district was presented to the respondents, and after due hearing the board found that “no lands situated in said proposed water district will be benefited by said district or the formation thereof” and denied the petition.

The proposed district embraces a large territory. About one-fifth thereof is composed of a number of valleys around Clear Lake and the remainder is mountainous. The petition is silent as to the purposes for which it is proposed to organize the district, except such as may be inferred from the law itself. The source of water supply is not stated. It is apparent that all of the lands of the proposed district cannot be irrigated and the petition does not disclose where the water, if any, is to be applied. The evidence produced at the hearing before the board is as silent as the petition on the foregoing questions. The witness of proponents who appeared to be most familiar with the situation described several possible reservoir sites, widely separated, and testified on cross-examination by the district attorney: “If this was solely for irrigation no land would be benefited except what was irrigated. They may not only irrigate but they may develop power, and every bit of land can be benefited by development of power. Q. What is the proposed system of works of the water district? A. I don’t know. Q. Do you know what the object of the proposed district is? A. For which? Q. The proposition of the formation of the various reservoir districts? A. I don’t know; I can’t answer you that, Mr. Churchill. Q. Before the board can determine the matter it would be essential to know that fact, what their proposed system would be, and how they are going to be benefited by the district. A. No, because the law provides it may be organized for three things, irrigation, domestic use or furnishing of power. It must be for one of those three things, or it may be for the protection of water rights. That would be a great thing, even though they did not irrigate. I look on this that it is a protection of the rights of the lands around the lake. That would be the greatest benefit that could accrue. . . . Q. You would not object to having a man taxed in Upper Lake for land that was irrigated in Big Valley? A. I would not, because anything that develops any section of Lake County is a benefit to any other section.”