Twin Falls Canal Co. v. American Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2

(after stating the facts).’-'

Two questions are presented: First, is American Falls reservoir district No. 2 a party in interest — the proper party defendant?

It is obvious from the findings of fact and the record that not only is title to the system in issue in the United States, but that it has exclusive control and entire supervision of construction and will have until the project is completed, and the management and operation will remain in it until otherwise provided by tifie Congress. 43 USCA §§ 498, 523, 524. Livanis v. Northport Irr. Dist., 121 Neb. 777 , 238 N. W. 757 ; Id., 120 Neb. 314 , 232 N. W. 583 .

Appellee has had no power over, or voice, control, or power in the management, control, or operation of the works or project, and no conceivable theory is pointed out, nor is such known to the court, how trespass of the United States in such construction, maintenance, or operation can be charged against appellee. Malone v. El Paso County Water Imp. Dist. No. 1 (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S.W. (2d) 815 . There is no distinction between the principle involved in the Malone- Case and that involved in the instant case. The maintenance, operation, control, etc., in each case was…