46-120.
Board; general powers and duties.
The board shall have the power and it shall be its duty to manage and conduct the business affairs of the district, make and execute all necessary contracts, employ such agents, officers, and employees as may be required and prescribe their duties, establish equitable bylaws, rules and regulations for the distribution and use of water among the owners of such lands, and generally to perform all such acts as shall be necessary to fully carry out the purposes of sections 46-101 to 46-1,111. The bylaws, rules and regulations shall be printed in convenient form for distribution in the district.
Source:Laws 1895, c. 70, § 9, p. 276; Laws 1909, c. 156, § 1, p. 565; Laws 1911, c. 158, § 1, p. 524; R.S.1913, § 3465; Laws 1915, c. 69, § 2, p. 172; Laws 1917, c. 82, § 1, p. 194; C.S.1922, § 2865; Laws 1923, c. 97, § 2, p. 247; Laws 1927, c. 142, § 1, p. 385; C.S.1929, § 46-109; R.S.1943, § 46-120.
Annotations
Valid contract made with irrigation company may, as between parties or their successors in interest, be enforced, subject to reasonable regulations, provided rights of other water users are not thereby unlawfully curtailed. Clague v. Tri-State Land Co., 84 Neb. 499, 121 N.W. 570 (1909).
Board may purchase or condemn all lands necessary for construction, use, maintenance, repair, and improvement of canals. Andrews v. Lillian Irr. Dist., 66 Neb. 458, 92 N.W. 612 (1902), 97 N.W. 336 (1903).
Landowners' causes of action against an irrigation district, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief to establish the district's obligations with respect to pipeline maintenance and delivery of water to lands along the pipeline, accrued when the landowners became members of the district, despite an argument that the district had a continuing obligation under the statute to maintain a means of delivery of water to the landowners' tracts; the landowners' causes of action were all based on the contention that the district had an obligation to maintain the pipeline and that the district had that obligation since inclusion of the landowners' lands into the district at the time the landowners became members of the district, and the landowners did not allege that any policies or obligations of the district had changed since that time. DeLaet v. Blue Creek Irr. Dist., 23 Neb. App. 106, 868 N.W.2d 483 (2015).
Right to contract for a supply of water was not limited by 1915 act requiring vote of electors in certain cases. Bridgeport Irr. Dist. v. United States, 40 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1930).
Contract with irrigation district whereby United States managed and operated system, did not deprive district of right to determine amount of taxes to be levied. New York Trust Co. v. Farmers' Irr. District, 280 F. 785 (8th Cir. 1922).