State ex rel. Galbraith v. Superior Court

Citations

• 59 Wash. 621
• 110 P. 429
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1252

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Irrigation—Private or Public Use — Constitutional Law. Const., art. 1, § 16, prohibiting the taking of private property for private use, except for drains, flumes, or ditches for agricultural etc., purposes, and art. 21, § 1, providing that irrigation etc. purposes shall be deemed a public use, confer legislative authority for Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 6326 et seq., authorizing the condemnation of land' for irrigation ditches by a private owner of agricultural lands.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Public Use — Determination. The declaration in const., art. 1, § 16, that the question of public use shall be a judicial question to be determined irrespective of legislative assertion, does not mean that it is to be determined without reference to constitutional assertions upon the subject.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Irrigation— Arid Lands — -Necessity—Benefits. The right to condemn rights of way for irrigation is not limited to the owners of arid land; and sufficient benefit will result to warrant condemnation for irrigation where it appears that the land is semi-arid, raising only a light crop of wheat or wheat hay or crops maturing early in July, while with irrigation it will produce abundantly almost any crop and will be increased $125 to-$150 per acre in value.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Irrigation—Necessity. The right to condemn rights of way for irrigation contemplates irrigation by gravity, and' cannot be defeated by the fact that the land could be irrigated by pumping.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Irrigation—Use of Land. Condemnation for an irrigation canal by a water company owning the lands which-it seeks to irrigate cannot be defeated by the fact that the company intends to sell the irrigated lands and that its purpose is speculative.</p>