United States v. Priest Rapids Irr. Dist.

(dissenting).

This decision violates (a) the federal condemnation law, (b) the law of the State of Washington, and (c) the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against the taking of property without compensation.

The court’s opinion, by failing to state succinctly the principal fact and the principal authority relied upon by the government, contains pages of discussion of irrelevant matter concerning formulae of compensation to the former landowners of the district in separate condemnation proceedings, none of whom are parties to this proceeding.

A. No landowner in the district has title in the district properties serving his land. His interest in the district properties held by the district in a proprietary capacity is no more than that of a stockholder in the properties of a corporation serving him by its dividends. Hence no title in the district properties is acquired by a purchase from a prior landowner of land so served.

This is apparent from the decision of the Washington Supreme Court In re Horse Heaven Irrigation District, 11 Wash.2d 218, 227 , 118 P.2d 972, 976 , where that court held:

“An irrigation district is a corporation which * * * owns and uses its property in a…

The United States, hereafter called the Government, sued to condemn all of the property of the Priest Rapids Irrigation District, a quasi-public corporation of the State of Washington, hereafter called the District. The lands sought to be taken were for a large project in aid of World War II. The Government paid into court the sum of $170,500 1 on its declaration of taking the District’s properties, as its estimate of their value.

History of the Case

On or about February 23, 1943 an “overall” condemnation proceeding was commenced below by the Government (Case *525 No. 128) to acquire title to and possession of an area of about 206,000 acres of land for the purposes of the above mentioned Government war project. Included in this enormous area was all of the land lying within the District. 2 In reality Case No. 128 was a single suit, even though separate trials were given the several amended petitions. The Government appears to have controlled, in some measure, the division of the suit for these separate trials by filing amended petitions more particularly describing various, comparatively small, groups of tracts. (See footnote 4.)

On May 12, 1944 the Government filed an amended…