King County Water Dist. No. 75 v. Port of Seattle

• Citation: 822 P.2d 331,63 Wn.App. 777
• Decision Date: 21 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 27172-5-I,27172-5-I
• Parties: KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 75, Respondent, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington

Page 777

63 Wn.App. 777

822 P.2d 331

KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 75, Respondent, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, Appellant.

No. 27172-5-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 1.

Jan. 21, 1992.

Thomas H. Tanaka, Craig R. Watson, Legal Dept., Seattle, for appellant.

Philip A. Talmadge, Talmadge and Cutler, Seattle, for respondent.

PEKELIS, Judge.

The Port of Seattle (Port) appeals from orders entering a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of King County Water District No. 75 (District). ¹ The Port contends that the trial court erred in declaring that the District had exclusive authority to provide water services within the District's service area and in permanently enjoining the Port from providing such services within the District's service area for the benefit of Port-owned property. We reverse.

I

This matter came before the trial court on the following stipulated facts: The Port and the District are both duly constituted municipal corporations operating within King County. The Port's boundaries are coterminous with those of King County. The District's boundaries abut the south and east edges of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (STIA), which is owned and operated by the Port.

The Port provides water services for the benefit of the STIA. In the past, the Port has purchased water services from the District for Port property located within the District's service area. The Port has maintained as many as 160 separate accounts with the District.

The present controversy arose when the Port commenced construction of several improvements on certain property it acquired over the past 20 years. The property is part of the STIA and is also located within the District's service area. ² The improvements included a parking lot for Port and tenant employees, a holding facility for buses and taxis, a tenant airline flight kitchen facility, and other similar facilities. The Port proposed to provide its own water services for the benefit of the property by extending a water line or lines to it from the STIA.

The District objected to the Port's proposal. The District has adequate existing water lines in place to provide water services to the recently acquired Port property. As part of its regular capital improvement program, the District was in the process of upgrading several of these lines to enable it to increase service to the Port-owned property under construction.

The District had included the Port-owned property in its comprehensive water plan, which sets forth the long range water plan for the District's service area and for the region. On the assumption that the water demand for the Port-owned property would be part of the District's future demand needs, the District had made major capital improvements in its service area. In 1982, the District sold municipal bonds, obligating it to preserve revenues from the entire service area or establish a restricted monetary reserve in order to provide an adequate revenue base for the bond retirement. These bonds are outstanding.

Faced with the Port's proposal to service its recently acquired property itself, the District filed an action for injunctive relief on September 17, 1990. The District sought a declaratory judgment that the Port did not have the "authority to extend water service into the District's service area". The District also sought to permanently enjoin the Port from "transporting water or constructing facilities for same into the District service area". In response, the Port contended that it was authorized by statute to provide water services for the benefit of its own property, even where such property is located within a local water district.

The trial court construed RCW 53.08.040, which authorizes port districts to provide water services for port-owned property, as granting only limited authority to provide such services. Specifically, the trial court held that a port district's authority to provide water services for port-owned property located within the service area of a local water district was limited to situations in which, unlike here, the water district has consented and the water district is neither willing nor able to provide such services on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis. Thus, the trial court entered an order declaring that the District had "exclusive authority" to provide water services within its service area. The order also permanently enjoined the Port from providing water services in the District's service area without the District's approval. The Port appeals from these orders.

As a preliminary matter, we address the District's contention that the Port is collaterally estopped from asserting that RCW 53.08.040 authorizes it to provide water services for the benefit of its own property when such services are otherwise available. The District bases this contention on the Port's participation in proceedings before the King County Boundary Review Board, in which, the District claims, the Board "determined" that RCW 53.08.040 denied the Port the right to operate a sewer system on its property where other sewer systems were prepared to provide such services. The Port subsequently entered into a stipulation which accepted the Board's final decision. However, in its final decision, the Board expressly stated that it was making "no determination" regarding the Port's argument that RCW 53.08.040 authorized it to operate a sewer system on its property. Because the Port's authority under RCW 53.08.040 was not previously determined, the Port was not collaterally estopped from litigating this issue here. ³ See Shoemaker v. Bremerton, 109 Wash.2d 504, 508, 745 P.2d 858 (1987).

II

The Port's principal claim is that it has express authority under RCW 53.08.040 to provide water services for the benefit of its own property, even where, as here, such property is located within the service area of a local water district. The District disagrees, contending that certain amendments to RCW 53.08.040 limit the Port's authority. In addition, the District claims that RCW 57.08.010(1)(d) provides it with exclusive authority to provide water services within its own service area.

The interpretation of a statute is a matter of law and is subject to independent appellate review. Schmitt v. Cape George Sewer Dist. 1, 61 Wash.App. 1, 5, 809 P.2d 217 (1991). The court's primary purpose in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. State v. Keller, 98 Wash.2d 725, 728, 657 P.2d 1384 (1983). The intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute itself. A municipal corporation is limited in its powers to those expressly granted and to those necessarily implied or incident to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation. Washington Pub. Util. Dists.' Utils. Sys. v. PUD 1, 112 Wash.2d 1, 6, 771 P.2d 701 (1989). If there is a doubt about a claimed grant of power, it must be denied. Port of Seattle v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 92 Wash.2d 789, 795, 597 P.2d 383 (1979).

Port districts are authorized to provide water services pursuant to RCW 53.08.040. As enacted, RCW 53.08.040 provided that:

A [port] district may improve its lands by dredging, filling, bulkheading, providing waterways or otherwise developing such lands for sale or lease for industrial and commercial purposes.

Laws of 1955, ch. 65, § 5, p. 407. In 1967, this provision was amended to add the following Where sewer and water utilities are constructed and operated by the port as an incident to servicing port lands, property owners in areas adjacent to such system may be permitted to connect thereto under terms, conditions and rates to be fixed and approved by the port commission ... Provided, That no port shall enter into an agreement or contract to provide sewer and/or water utilities if substantially similar utilities are available to such adjacent property owners from another source (or sources) which is willing to provide such utilities on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis.

(Emphasis added.)

We address first the issue of whether RCW 53.08.040 grants the Port express authority to provide water services for the benefit of its own property. The plain language of RCW 53.08.040, as amended in 1967, expressly authorizes port districts to provide incidental water services for the benefit of port-owned property. Our Supreme Court has stated that port districts have possessed this authority since their creation in 1911. See Port of Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 53 Wash.2d 734, 742, 336 P.2d 872 (1959). The only limitation on this authority is imposed in a proviso which bars port districts from providing water services to "adjacent property owners" where substantially similar services are otherwise available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis.

In 1972, further amendments to RCW 53.08.040 were enacted. The District contends that these amendments severely limited the authority of port districts to provide incidental water services. The District interprets the proviso in RCW 53.08.040, as amended, to bar port districts from providing incidental water services for port-owned property where substantially similar services are available from another source on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis or where an available source has not consented. We disagree.

As amended in 1972, RCW 53.08.040 provides, in pertinent part:

A [port] district may ... acquire, construct, install, improve, and operate sewer and water utilities to serve its own property and other property owners under terms, conditions, and rates to be fixed and approved by the port commission. A [port] district may also acquire ... maintain and operate [pollution control] facilities ..., and may make such facilities available to others ... And provided further, That no port shall enter into an agreement or contract to provide sewer and/or water utilities or pollution control facilities if substantially similar utilities...