Child v. City of Spanish Fork, 13960

• Decision Date: 16 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 13960,13960
• Citation: 538 P.2d 184
• Parties: Cleve C. CHILD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SPANISH FORK, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 184

538 P.2d 184

Cleve C. CHILD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SPANISH FORK, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13960.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 16, 1975.

Fred G. Biesinger, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.

W. Eugene Hansen and G. Richard Hill, of Hansen & Orton, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

CROCKETT, Justice:

Plaintiffs, owners of real property in the area known as 'Wolf Hollow' adjacent to Spanish Fork in Utah County, sought a declaratory judgment ¹ to challenge the City of Spanish Fork's requirement that they transfer irrigation water to the City as a condition to annexation thereto.

On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits and documentary evidence defendant moved for dismissal. The trial court treated it as a motion for summary judgment; ² and granted the motion. Plaintiffs appeal contending: (1) that the action of the City Council is beyond their powers; and that it is arbitrary and unreasonable; and (2) that it violates plaintiffs' constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws.

During 1972, plaintiffs had presented petitions to the City Council of Spanish Fork City requesting annexation of the 'Wolf Hollow' area ³. On February 15, 1973, in a meeting of the City Council, a resolution was passed approving the annexation, subject to several conditions, one of which was the 'transfer of irrigation water to the city,' but the exact amount was not then specified.

On April 19, 1973, the proponents of annexation met with the City Council. The transfer of irrigation water was again discussed; and the petitioners were informed that as a condition to annexation they would be required to transfer to the City ownership of shares of Strawberry Valley water representing two acre feet of water for each acre of land to be annexed. It was further explained that this was the policy that had been followed in the past and that the petitioners would also be required to comply.

These plaintiffs took the position that the resolution of February 15th approving annexation had made it a fact accomplished; and that the condition requiring 'transfer of irrigation water', which was not fixed as to amount until the later meeting of April 19th, was invalid for the reasons discussed herein. Upon rejection of their contentions plaintiffs initiated this suit.

Certain principles are applicable in considering the plaintiffs' contentions. The first is that a determination of city boundaries is a legislative function, which is to be performed by its governing body. ⁴ The second logically follows therefrom: that in carrying out that duty the city council is endowed with broad discretion to make decisions and determine policies which it thinks will best fulfill its responsibilities. Consequently, as in all legislative matters, courts are reluctant to interfere therewith; and do so only when the decisions or actions taken are clearly outside the authority of the governing body, or are so wholly unreasonable and unjust that they must be deemed capricious and arbitrary in adversely affecting someone's rights. ⁵

In arguing that the City Council exceeded its powers plaintiffs contend that the City can obtain water resources only by the means of purchase, lease or condemnation as set forth in Section 10--7--4, Utah Code Annotated 1953:

The board of commissioners, city council or board of trustees of any city or town may acquire, purchase or lease all or any part of any water, water works system, water supply or property connected therewith, and whenever the governing body of a city or town shall deem it necessary for the public good such city or town may bring condemnation proceedings to acquire the same; . . .

The language of that statute, the same as all statutes, should be interpreted and applied in the light of its purpose. In doing so we think it is properly regarded as a statute of authorization and not of limitation or restriction. Its purpose is to provide the governing authority a means of acquiring water. We see nothing therein, either express or implied, to indicate an intent that it should be construed so narrowly as to preclude a city or town from acquiring water by the means recited, or by any other legitimate means such as, for example, gift, assignment, or even by prescriptive use or easement, so long as it is done to fulfill the board's responsibility of acquiring and conserving water supplies for public use.

In regard to plaintiffs charge that the City Council's action was arbitrary and unreasonable, we are in accord with some ideas aptly expressed by the trial court. He called attention to the fact that it was the responsibility of the City Council to consider the total circumstances, including the fact that if new territory is annexed to the City, without making provision for the added burdens, there may result a dilution of municipal services and an increase in tax burdens upon the present citizenry. He expressed what we regard as the sensible view that to require the plaintiffs to convey the amount of water mentioned, in reciprocity for annexation, represented prudence in planning for the City's needs; and he further observed that he was not persuaded that such action was inconsistent with or in excess of the council's powers, or in any degree unreasonable or arbitrary. To those thoughts we give our approval; and add that the action of the City appears to be in harmony with the generally recognized rule which permits a city to provide for added or expanded services by imposing reasonable requirements as a condition to the annexation of new territory. ⁶

We similarly see no merit in plaintiff's claim that the City should avoid imposing this condition on them by issuing bonds and thus have the entire city pay for the acquisition of more water. The...