Central Basin Municipal Water Dist. v. Fossette

• Decision Date: 15 July 1965
• Citation: 235 Cal.App.2d 689,45 Cal.Rptr. 651
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a municipal water district, Petitioner, v. Carl FOSSETTE, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent, AZUSA AGRICULTURAL WATER COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 29447.

Page 651

45 Cal.Rptr. 651

235 Cal.App.2d 689

CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a municipal water district, Petitioner, v. Carl FOSSETTE, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent AZUSA AGRICULTURAL WATER COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Civ. 29447.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

July 15, 1965.

Burris & Lagerlof, Stanley C. Lagerlof, H. Jess Senecal and Jack T. Swafford, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

Tuttle & Taylor, William A. Norris and Alan Beban, Los Angeles, for respondent.

Surr & Hellyer, San Bernardino, Clayson, Stark, Rothrock & Mann, Corona, and John B. Surr, San Bernardino, as amici curiae.

FRAMPTON, Justice pro tem. ^*

The petition herein was filed on May 19, 1965, in the Supreme Court and was thereafter transferred here for decision.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent, as its secretary, to certify to the passage and adoption of its resolution Number 2-65-185, and to transmit a duly certified copy thereof to the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District.

Petitioner is a municipal water district organized under the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, as amended (Stats.1963, ch. 156, div. 20, Wat.Code, § 71000 et seq.). Petitioner's boundaries lie within the County of Los Angeles and its principal office is located therein. Respondent, at all times since February 10, 1965, has been and now is the duly appointed, qualified and acting secretary of petitioner. It is respondent's obligation as secretary to perform in addition to the duties imposed on him by law, such duties as may be imposed on him by the board of directors of petitioner. (Wat.Code, § 71360.) The duties imposed on respondent by law and by petitioner's board of directors include those relating to the certification of the passage and adoption of ordinances, resolutions, motions and orders of the board of directors of petitioner.

Petitioner, Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, and the City of Compton, a municipal corporation, are plaintiffs in an action commenced May 12, 1959, Number 722647, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, against nine cities, two county water districts and seventeen public utilities and private water companies, each of which defendants is located within and produces water from an area upstream on the San Gabriel River from the area in which plaintiffs are located. The defendants named and served in said action, together with California Domestic Water Company and the City of Whittier, constitute the major producers of water in the area in which they are located. Issue was joined on the filing of the answers to the amended complaint. By the amended complaint, petitioner and the other plaintiffs, (a) sought to compel each of the defendants to set forth the nature and extent of its claims in and to the water referred to therein as being the water of the 'San Gabriel River System,' (b) requested that the court fix and determine the rights, if any, of each defendant in and to said water, and (c) requested that each defendant therein be perpetually restrained and enjoined from taking such water in excess of the amount so fixed and determined by the court. After the commencement of the action there were certain dismissals had and new parties added where there had been mergers or transfers of water rights. California Domestic Water Company, a corporation, and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, a municipal water district (hereinafter referred to as 'Upper District'), intervened as parties defendant.

On February 10, 1965, issues having been joined, the petitioner and the two other plaintiffs and the defendants entered into, executed and filed, in the action, a stipulation for judgment which became fully effective on said date. The stipulation provided, inter alia, that upon the occurrence of specified 'Plaintiffs and defendants agree that during the period prior to entry of the attached form of Judgment, they will cooperate in endeavoring to collect such information as the Watermaster would obtain if the attached form of Judgment had been entered and the Watermaster had been appointed by the Court pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Judgment, which information is herein referred to as 'said information.' To that end the parties hereto hereby agree that promptly following the complete execution of this stipulation by all parties, Upper District and Central Municipal shall each notify the other in writing as to the identity of the person who it expects will be nominated as the representative of Upper Area Parties or Lower Area Parties, as the case may be, under paragraph 6 of the Judgment. Upon receiving such notice, Upper District and Central Municipal shall each instruct its designated nominee that until the attached form of Judgment is entered and the Watermaster has been appointed pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Judgment he shall in cooperation with the other designated nominee do all things reasonably necessary to obtain such of said information as is available from the parties hereto or any public agency.'

conditions precedent, the form of judgment attached[235 Cal.App.2d 693] thereto should be rendered. The judgment provided for the appointment of a 'Watermaster' consisting of three persons, one as a representative of 'Lower Area Parties' (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(c) of the judgment), another acting as the representative of 'Upper Area Parties' (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(d) of the judgment), and a third person jointly nominated by petitioner and Upper District. The Watermaster, when duly constituted and appointed pursuant to paragraph 6 of the judgment, will administer and enforce the provisions of the judgment and the instructions and subsequent orders of the court. In order to perform those duties, the Watermaster, by paragraphs 7 through 13 of the judgment, is given certain powers and duties, including the collection of information and data concerning the quantities and quality of various categories of water passing from 'Upper Area' (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(e) of the judgment) to 'Lower Area' (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(f) of the judgment). Paragraph 4 of the stipulation for judgment provides as follows:

On February 17, 1965, petitioner received a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the board of directors of Upper District, determining that Thomas M. Stetson was the person expected to be nominated as the representative of the Upper Area parties under paragraph 6 of the judgment. Following the execution of the stipulation for judgment by all parties, petitioner's board of directors did determine, on February 18, 1965, the identity of the person (hereinafter sometimes referred to as 'said designee') which petitioner expected would be nominated as the representative of said Lower Area parties under paragraph 6 of the judgment. Identification of Max Bookman as said designee was fixed by resolution Number 2-65-185 duly adopted by petitioner's board of directors on the above-mentioned date. By the terms of said resolution, respondent was ordered to give the necessary written notice to Upper District, identifying said designee by certifying to the adoption of said resolution and by transmitting a duly certified copy thereof to Upper District. On March 17, 1965, respondent did refuse to either certify or to transmit as ordered a certified, or any, copy of said resolution. Respondent bases his refusal to act upon the trounds that a substantial question exists as to the validity of the stipulation for judgment: '(i) because of the lack of statutory power of petitioner to enter into the Stipulation for Judgment; (ii) because of the lack of statutory power of Upper District to enter into the Stipulation for Judgment; and (iii) irrespective of the power of either petitioner or Upper District to enter into Stipulation for Judgment.'

Respondent's refusal to comply with the order and direction of petitioner's board of directors was communicated to them at the board's regular meeting held on March 17, 1965, whereupon the board duly adopted its resolution Number 3-65-186, wherein the determination embodied in and approved by resolution Number 2-65-185, was approved, ratified and confirmed, and respondent was further ordered to give the necessary written notice to Upper District identifying Max Bookman as said designee by certifying the adoption of resolution Number 2-65-185 and by transmitting a certified copy thereof to Upper District. Contrary to such further order, respondent did refuse, at the meeting on March 17, 1965, and still refuses either to certify or to transmit, as required, a certified or any copy of resolution Number 2-65-185.

Petitioner asserts that the respondent is adversely affecting and frustrating the agreement of petitioner and Upper District to perform the stipulation for judgment in accordance with its terms, particularly as provided in paragraph 4 thereof, in that until said written notification is given to Upper District, Upper District cannot lawfully comply with paragraph 4 of the stipulation and instruct its said designated nominee that he shall, in cooperation with the designated nomineee of petitioner, do all things reasonably necessary to obtain the information referred to in said paragraph 4 as 'said information' to the extent such information is available from the parties to the stipulation for judgment or any public agency. Petitioner urges that respondent's failure to act is delaying the day when there will be delivery to said Lower Area of such quantities of 'Make-up Water' (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(m) of the judgment) as it is entitled to receive pursuant to the terms of the judgment once such judgment is rendered, in that (1) respondent's refusal will result in a substantial delay in the program for...