## Facts

- Landowners petitioned the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 1968 to organize 11,420 acres as the McDowell Mountain Irrigation and Drainage District under Arizona’s irrigation-district statutes.
- Most acreage was held by a title company as trustee for large development interests; several small parcel owners also signed.
- Part of the proposed district lay within six miles of the City of Scottsdale’s limits.
- Scottsdale and the League of Cities and Towns opposed formation at Board hearings held on July 15 and July 22, 1968.
- The Board granted the petition and authorized the district’s organization.
- Scottsdale, the League, and a county taxpayer filed an action in superior court seeking extraordinary relief (mandamus, certiorari, or quo warranto) to test the district’s legal validity.
- The district moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of standing; the superior court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, effectively upholding formation.
- The challengers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether any of the challengers (a nearby municipality, a municipal association, and a county taxpayer) had standing to contest the validity of the district’s organization.
2. Whether statutory jurisdictional prerequisites for forming an irrigation and drainage district were satisfied, including that the land and the district’s primary purpose fell within the irrigation-and-drainage purposes contemplated by the statute.
3. Whether courts may review jurisdictional facts supporting a board’s authorization of a special district, rather than treating the board’s approval as conclusive.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that at least Scottsdale and the county taxpayer had standing to challenge the district’s legal organization.
- The court concluded the record did not establish the statutory jurisdictional predicates necessary for the Board to authorize formation as an irrigation and drainage district.
- The court permitted judicial review of jurisdictional facts underlying the Board’s action in forming a special district with governmental powers.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality and a county taxpayer may have standing to contest the legal existence of a special district when the district’s creation may affect municipal interests or public finances.
- Irrigation-and-drainage district statutes require satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites tied to irrigation/drainage purposes; organization primarily to serve an urban development objective may fall outside the statute.
- A county board’s approval of a special district is subject to judicial review as to whether statutory conditions precedent (jurisdictional facts) actually existed; summary disposition is improper where those predicates are not established.

## Conclusion

The court set aside summary judgment that had insulated the district’s formation from review, recognized standing in a nearby city and a county taxpayer, and required further proceedings to determine whether the statutory requirements for organizing an irrigation and drainage district were met.


City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage Dist., 107 Ariz. 117, 483 P.2d 532 (Ariz. 1971)