Chance v. Public Water Supply
| Decision Date | 02 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 16,A,16 |
| Citation | 41 S.W.3d 523 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2001) . Scott H. Chance and Janice F. Chance, Respondents, v. Public Water Supply Districtppellant. WD58246 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. W. Stephen Nixon
Counsel for Appellant: Douglas J. Patterson
Counsel for Respondent: John G. Sommer
Opinion Summary: Scott and Janice Chance asked the circuit court to issue a judgment detaching a portion of their property from Public Water Supply District No. 16, which serves unincorporated areas of Jackson County. The Chances sought detachment so that the City of Independence's water supply could serve their entire property. The district argued that a federal statute protected it from detachment of any property, that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the circuit court erred by detaching the entire property, instead of only a portion.
AFFIRMED.
Division holds: The federal statute does not shield the district against detachment because the statute applies only when a municipal corporation seeks to annex or include a water district's service area within its boundaries. Missouri law allows individual residents of a district to petition for detachment and does not prohibit the City of Independence from supplying water to property within a water district's area. Substantial evidence supported the judgment, and the circuit court did not err by detaching the entire property.
Scott and Janice Chance petitioned the circuit court for a judgment to detach a portion of their 10-acre tract from Public Water Supply District No 16, which serves unincorporated areas of Jackson County. The district opposed the Chances' petition and argued that a federal statute protected the district from detachment of any property. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered that the Chances' property be detached from the district. The district appealed to this court. We affirm the circuit court's judgment.
We will affirm a circuit court judgment unless it is against the weight of the evidence or misstates or misapplies the law. Deutsch v. Wolff, 994 S.W.2d 561, 567 (Mo. banc 1999).
The Chances' request for detachment arose from their decision to divide their property into two lots. Their house was on one of the lots and was served by Independence's water system. Independence refused to supply service to the second lot unless the Chances formally petitioned for detachment from District No 16. Independence and the district have water mains adjacent to the second lot. The Chances gave the district access to their property in 1993 so the district could install a six-inch water line. The Chances testified that, because of the poor condition in which the district left their property, they decided to seek water service from Independence rather than the district for the second lot.
Section 247.031.11 provides, "Territory included in a district that is not being served by such district may be detached from such district provided that there are no outstanding general obligation or special obligation bonds[.]" Section 247.031.4 requires the circuit court to detach the property in question if the court finds that the detachment (1) will be in the best interest of the inhabitants and landowners of the territory to be detached and (2) will not adversely affect the remainder of the district.
The district contends first that the circuit court erred in detaching the Chances' property because the district was a "participant" in a federal loan program and was therefore entitled to the protection of 7 U.S.C. section 1926(b) (1999). This federal statute says, "The service provided or made available through any such association shall not be curtailed or limited by inclusion of the area served by such association within the boundaries of any municipal corporation or other public body[.]"
The federal loan at issue in this case is a $5 million loan by the United States Department of Agriculture to the Jackson County Water Company. The district asserts that it, too, was a party to the loan, or, in the alternative, that its assets were at risk in case of Jackson County Water Company's default.
The courts have interpreted "any such association" in section 1926(b) as signifying the entity that received the loan. Pinehurst Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Southern Pines, 690 F. Supp. 444, 452 (M.D.N.C. 1988), aff'd, 887 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1989). The circuit court found that "the loan is a new project loan, and that it is not to [the district]." We agree and conclude that section 1926(b) does not protect the district from detachment of the Chances' property, whether or not the district was a "participant" in the loan.
Section section 1926(b) restricts its application to cases in which a water district's service territory has been included within a municipal corporation's or other entity's boundary. This has not occurred. The service areas of Independence and the district overlap, but the statute, by its express terms, does not pertain to overlapping service areas but only to cases in which a municipality seeks to curtail or to limit a water district's service area by annexing or including the area within its boundaries. See City of Madison, Mississippi, v. Bear Creek Water Association, Inc., 816 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1987). The statute has no application to this case.
Missouri law draws a distinction between individuals and municipalities with regard to detachment from water districts. Section 247.031 affords the voters residing within water district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson Properties v. Public Water Supply
...on Section 247.031. Instead of first engaging in a formal Section 1926 analysis, the trial relied on Chance v. Public Water Supply District No. 16, 41 S.W.3d 523, 525 (Mo.App.2001), to conclude that Section 1926 was inapplicable because the detachment was sought by a private individual rath......
-
City of Harrisonville v. Public Water Supply District No. 9, 9
...out their rights and obligations in the contract they executed. In its reply brief, the City cites Chance v. Public Water Supply District No. 16, 41 S.W.3d 523 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001), for its citation of Ong. Chance involved a situation where individual landowners petitioned to detach a portio......
-
Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 1 of Greene Cnty. v. City of Springfield
...of triggering "events" to those previously enumerated. Id.The Court's interpretation is supported by Chance v. Public Water Supply District No. 16 , 41 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). Chance recognized that: Section 1926(b) restricts its application to cases in which a water district's ser......
-
Horn v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 8
...and that such detachment would not adversely affect the remainder of the Water District. Relying upon Chance v. Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 16, 41 S.W.3d 523 (Mo.App.2001), the court also held that 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) was not applicable to the case. On September 9, 2003, the court approved d......