Cox v. Otay Municipal Water Dist.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1962
• Citation: 19 Cal.Rptr. 595,200 Cal.App.2d 672
• Parties: The City of San Diego, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, Jan COX, Ernest H. Lashlee and Margaret E. Lashlee, Plaintiffs in Intervention and Appellants-Respondents, v. OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision, et al., Defendants and Appellants-Respondents. Civ. 6704.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 595

19 Cal.Rptr. 595

200 Cal.App.2d 672

The City of San Diego, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, Jan COX, Ernest H. Lashlee and Margaret E. Lashlee, Plaintiffs in Intervention and Appellants-Respondents, v. OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision, et al., Defendants and Appellants-Respondents.

Civ. 6704.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Feb. 23, 1962.

Hearing Denied April 18, 1962.

Jennings, Engstrand & Henrikson, Paul D. Engstrand, Jr., and John H. Whitney, LaMesa, for appellants.

Alan M. Firestone, City Atty., Robert J. Cooney, Sp. Deputy City Atty., and John S. Rhoades, San Diego, for respondents and interveners.

Phil D. Swing, San Diego, amicus curiae, for interveners.

COUGHLIN, Justice.

This is an action in declaratory relief by which the plaintiff and respondent, the City of San Diego, seeks to enjoin the defendants and appellants, Otay Municipal Water District and its officers, from operating a water system in and furnishing water to inhabitants of the City of San Diego; and by which three land owners, who intervened in the action, seek a determination declaring invalid the proceedings taken by the water district which resulted in the formation of an improvement district that included their property. The court enjoined the construction or operation of any water works by the defendant within the City's territory without its consent; enjoined the issuance of bonds for the construction or operation of such water works without the City's consent; but did not pass upon the issue raised by the interveners with respect to the validity of the improvement district which contemplated such construction and operation. The interveners also appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The latter appeal should be dismissed as the order in question is not appealable. (Code Civ.Proc. sec. 963; Reeves v. Reeves, 34 Cal.2d 355, 209 P.2d 937.)

The plaintiff is a chartered city. The defendant water district was organized under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Stats.1911, ch. 671, p. 1290 et seq.) There are approximately 60,000 acres within its boundaries. In 1957, 4000 of these were annexed to the City of San Diego. In 1959, under proceedings provided by the statute, an improvement district was formed within the water district which covered 12,000 of these acres, including the 4000 theretofore annexed to the City of San Diego, and the issuance of bonds for the construction of a distribution system to furnish water to the land within the improvement district was authorized. At the time a question the territory within the boundaries of the latter district was sparsely populated; was not furnished water either by the City or the water district; and the land therein was substantially undeveloped, although a portion thereof was used for dry farming.

Shortly after formation of the improvement district the City brought this action to prevent the water district from furnishing water to the inhabitants of the annexed area and from constructing a water distribution system within that area for that purpose, contending that these functions are municipal affairs over which it has exclusive control by virtue of the State Constitution and the provisions of its charter, and that the water district might not engage therein without its consent.

The constitutional sections relied upon provide: (1) that 'Any municipal corporation may establish and operate public works for supplying its inhabitants with * * * water * * *.' (Cal.Const. art. XI, sec. 19) and, (2) that cities organized under charters are empowered 'to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters, * * *.' (Cal.Const. art. XI, sec. 6.)

The charter provisions in question are contained in Sections 1 and 103.1 of the charter and declare that the city '* * * may own and operate public utility systems, including the joint or sole operation and ownership of utilities for the purchase, development, and supply of water * * * for the use of the City and its inhabitants * * *.' (Stats.1931, ch. 47, p. 2840, sec. 1), and that

'No person, firm or corporation shall establish and operate works for supplying the inhabitants of The City of San Diego with * * * water * * * or establish and carry on any business within said City which is designed to or does furnish services of a public utility nature to the inhabitants of said City, without the consent of said City * * *.' (Stats.1953, ch. 106, p. 4005.)

It now is settled that, absent any constitutional or statutory inhibition, the authority conferred by general law upon a public corporation to act within a prescribed area, does not terminate per se upon the annexation of a part of the area by a city possessing similar authority; that the issue presented concerns the intent of the Legislature in the premises; and that the probability of a potential conflict between corporations possessing dual authority, of itself, does not establish and intent against its existence. (Henshaw v. Foster, 176 Cal. 507, 169 P. 82; La Mesa Homes Co. v. La Mesa, etc., Irr. Dist., 173 Cal. 121, 159 P. 593; Pixley v. Saunders, 168 Cal. 152, 141 P. 815.) The Municipal Water Act of 1911 (Stats.1911, ch. 671, p. 1290 et seq.) contains on limitation upon the authority of a water district organized thereunder to furnish water to an incorporated area as well as to an unincorporated area. To the contrary, specific provisions in the Act are directed to situations wherein both such areas are included within such a water district. (See stats.1911, ch. 671, and amendments thereto, secs. 2, 2.5, 12 [subd. 6], 27, 27.1, 28 and 33.) ¹ In State of California v. Marin Municipal Water Dist., 17 Cal.2d 699, 702, 111 P.2d 651, 654, the court referred to a municipal water district as a 'corporate body organized to supply water to a defined area including both incorporated and unincorporated territory.' (Italics ours.) On the other hand, although incorporated as well as unincorporated territory may be included in a municipal water district, the inclusion of a city within such a district, its annexation thereto, or its exclusion therefrom after formation, requires the inclusion, annexation or exclusion of the 'entire corporate area.' (Stats.1911, ch. 671, and amendments thereto, secs. 2, 2.5, 27, 27.1, 27.2 and 27.3.) It would appear that the Legislature attempted to limit the exercise of the authority conferred upon a water district over territory included within a city to those instances where such authority applied to the 'entire corporate area.' The reason therefor is apparent, i. e., to obviate the necessity for the exercise of dual functions by the district and the city. The legislative intent thus appearing is none the less clear because, after establishment of the district's boundaries, the city might acquire territory not included therein. (See stats. 1953, ch. 1882, sec. 2.) The latter situation involves circumstances over which the Legislature deemed it unwise to attempt to exercise control, and expressly declared its intention in the premises. The conclusions heretofore noted are pertinent to a determination of the legislative intent with respect to the situation at hand.

The charter of the City of San Diego, as well as the act under which the defendant water district was organized (Stats.1911, ch. 671, p. 1290 et seq.) and the annexation statute by which the overlapping territory in question became a part of the City (Gov.Code, sec. 35100 et seq.) all are state laws. (Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473, 481, 279 P. 447; Taylor v. Cole, 201 Cal. 327, 333; Adams v. Wolff, 84 Cal.App.2d 435, 440, 190 P.2d 665.) In determining the issue at hand, all pertinent statutes should be considered as parts of a whole system of law. (Stafford v. Los Angeles, etc., Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795, 799, 270 P.2d 12.) The charter provides that no person or corporation shall establish or operate works for supplying water to inhabitants of the City without the latter's consent. The Municipal Water District Act contains no provision foreclosing application of the foregoing charter provision to the defendant district. Of interest, and entitled to consideration, are the provisions of Section 33 of the Water District Act that 'the inclusion in, or annexation or addition to, a municipal water district, of the corporate area of any public corporation or public agency, shall not * * * impair the powers of any such public corporation or public agency, notwithstanding the identity of purpose, * * * of such municipal water district.' (Stats.1955, ch. 1318, sec. 9.) There is no provision in the annexation statute which limits the right of a city to annex territory because it is part of an established district, nor precludes the application of the charter provisions of such city, similar to those under consideration in this case, to the territory annexed, although it is a matter of note that this statute does foreclose annexation of property which is part of another city (Gov.Code, sec. 35110), and also provides that the annexation of territory thereunder will not 'affect, terminate or invalidate' certain proceedings therein designated. (Gov.Code, sec. 35156.) Considered as a whole, the statutory law on the subject supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended to limit the authority of a water district over territory annexed by a city, commensurate with any limitation expressed in the charter of the annexing city.

In San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court, 56 A.C. 733, 16 Cal.Rptr. 609, 365 P.2d 753, the Supreme Court, by a holding essential to its decision therein, authoritatively established the applicability of the charter provision in question to the situation at hand, and its effect upon the authority of the water district. In that case, the City of San Diego sought...