Cherokee Water Dist. v. Colorado Springs
| Decision Date | 19 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 25535,25535 |
| Citation | 519 P.2d 339,184 Colo. 161 |
| Parties | CHEROKEE WATER DISTRICT, a Quasi-Municipal corporation of the State of Colorado and C. H. Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLORADO SPRINGS, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Saunders, Snyder & Ross, P. C., John M. Dickson, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gordon D. Hinds, City Atty., Horn, Anderson & Johnson, Louis Johnson, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment. The action was brought by the Cherokee Water District in an attempt to have portions of a contract between the District and the City of Colorado Springs declared Ultra vires, null and void and to have a ruling that the District has power to supersede the contractual provisions and to fix rates for water delivered to the City. The District was unsuccessful in its attempt. We affirm.
The territory of the District is near but not within the limits of the City. Prior to the time the contract was made, the District had acquired water from wells in the Black Squirrel Creek area, located 25 miles east of the City and the District. Under the contract dated May 14, 1963, the District was to supply the City with 3,000 acre-feet of water annually for a period of 10 years at a price of $60 per acre-foot. The contract recognized that the District would use an additional 3,000 acre-feet anually for its own purposes, and limited the District to 3,000 acre-feet out of the first 6,000 acre-feet of annual production. If there was insufficient water to supply the combined 6,000 acre-foot requirement, the District and the City would bear the shortages in equal amounts. If the annual production was greater than the combined amounts, the City had prior rights to purchase up to an additional 3,000 acre-feet annually at $50 per acre-foot. Delivery of the water would commence as soon as facilities could be constructed, and no later than January 1, 1964.
The contract also provided that after the first 10 years the City had the option In perpetuity each year to take the average amount of water delivered annually during the first 10 years of the contract. In return the City would pay the District's maintenance and operating costs proprated according to the proportionate amount of water purchased as compared with the entire amount produced. Also included within the payment by the City would be an additional $7.50 per acre-foot, plus royalties to be paid by the District for water up to $7.50 per acre-foot.
The District embraces 2 1/2 square miles. At the time the contract was made there were few, if any, persons residing within the District boundaries. The District used the contract to finance the purchase and installation of its pipe lines and water system.
In August of 1970 the District notified the City that, commencing October 1, 1970, the City would have to pay $126 per acrefoot for water delivered under the contract. It has been the position of the District that it was entitled to abrogate the contract in this respect under 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 89--5--13(12)(a) and (b). This statute grants to water districts the power to fix and from time to time increase or decrease water charges.
Citing City of Fort Collins v. Park View Pipe Line, 139 Colo. 119, 336 P.2d 716 (1959), the trial court held that in selling water beyond its boundaries the District acted in its proprietary capacity and was free to contract as provided in the agreement; 1 and that the power of the District to increase water rates under the statute 'is limited to those customers receiving service within the boundaries of the District and for which the District has a utility obligation to serve.'
We do not need to reach the questions as to the right of the District to contract with its own residents and whether the statute gives it the right to abrogate such a contract with residents. In affirming, we merely hold that the District has authority to enter into the contract here involved, and that, since it involves a sale and delivery of water outside the boundaries of the District, the District does not have authority under the statute to abrogate the price portion of the contract.
A much more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Colorado Springs v. Solis
...obligations can be avoided on the ground of impossibility of performance or, perhaps, hardship." Cherokee Water Dist. v. Colorado Springs, 184 Colo. 161, 519 P.2d 339, 340, 341 (1974), superceded by statute as stated in Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water & Sanitation Dist., 928 P.2d 1254, 1264 4......
-
Mariano & Associates, P.C. v. Board of County Com'rs of Sublette County, 86-206
... ... , 239 Iowa 1, 30 N.W.2d 500 (1948); LaFourche Parish Water District No. 1 v. Carl Heck Engineers, Inc., La.App., 346 ... School Dist. No. 1, Multnomah County, 122 Ore. 124, 256 P. 652 (1927); ... Clackamas County Housing Authority, supra; Cherokee Water Dist. v. Colorado Springs, 184 Colo. 161, 519 P.2d ... ...
-
Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water and Sanitation Dist. v. City and County of Denver By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs
...was extraterritorial. Colorado recognizes the validity of perpetual term water contracts. See Cherokee Water Dist. v. City of Colorado Springs, 184 Colo. 161, 164, 519 P.2d 339, 340-41 (1974). The Districts' contracts are The steps normally involved in rate determination are establishment o......
-
City and County of Denver By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs v. Consolidated Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2
...the long-standing goal of maximum beneficial use of water. We are unpersuaded by Denver's claims. A. In Cherokee Water Dist. v. Colorado Springs, 184 Colo. 161, 519 P.2d 339 (1974), we upheld the validity of a contract for the sale of water to a municipality when the contract itself contain......