Petition and plan of irrigation; hearing before county board; finding; appeal to district court; procedure; bond.

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

46-107. Petition and plan of irrigation; hearing before county board; finding; appeal to district court; procedure; bond.

At the time set for the hearing, the county board may amend such plan of irrigation as it may find advisable, and when it shall have determined to proceed with the matter, the board may adjourn such hearing from time to time, not exceeding four weeks in all, and on the final hearing may make such changes in the proposed boundaries as it may find to be proper, and shall establish and define boundaries; Provided, the board shall, upon final hearing, make a specific finding as to the territory within the proposed district, which is susceptible of irrigation by the same system of works applicable to the other lands in such proposed district, which finding shall be deemed a final order for purposes of review to the district court on appeal. Such appeal shall be taken by filing with the county clerk of the county wherein the land or any part of the land lies, a written notice of the appeal within ten days from the date of such specific finding. The interested party or parties appealing shall give a bond to be approved by the clerk of the district court, conditioned to pay all costs of the proceedings on appeal, should the decision of the county board be sustained, and shall within thirty days file a transcript of the proceedings had upon such specific finding with the clerk of the district court, where the matter shall be tried and determined de novo.

Source

  • Laws 1895, c. 70, § 2, p. 271;
  • Laws 1903, c. 121, § 1, p. 616;
  • Laws 1909, c. 155, § 1, p. 560;
  • R.S.1913, § 3458;
  • Laws 1917, c. 81, § 1, p. 192;
  • C.S.1922, § 2858;
  • C.S.1929, § 46-102;
  • Laws 1933, c. 87, § 1, p. 356;
  • C.S.Supp.,1941, § 46-102;
  • R.S.1943, § 46-107.

Annotations

  • Order of county board establishing boundaries of districts is conclusive, at least in collateral attack on question whether land will be benefited by irrigation, but otherwise on question if such lands cannot from some source be irrigated. Sowerwine v. Central Irr. District, 85 Neb. 687, 124 N.W. 118 (1909); Andrews v. Lillian Irr. Dist., 66 Neb. 458, 92 N.W. 612 (1902), 97 N.W. 336 (1903).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.