Louisville Water Co. v. Preston St. Road Water Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 13 March 1953 |
| Citation | 256 S.W.2d 26 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE WATER CO. et al. v. PRESTON STREET ROAD WATER DIST. NO. 1 et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Morris & Garlove, Charles W. Morris, Gilbert Burnett, Alan N. Schneider and Harris Coleman, Louisville, for appellants.
Robert L. Sloss, R. Davis McAfee, Edward T. Ewen, Jr., Wyatt, Grafton & Grafton, Allen, McElwain, Dinning & Clarke, J. Donald Dinning, Bullitt, Dawson & Tarrant, Louisville, for appellees.
There is only one issue presented on this appeal: Are the rates and services of appellant, Louisville Water Company, hereinafter referred to as 'Water Company,' for water sold to consumers outside the corporate limits of the City of Louisville, subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'Commission,' under the provisions of KRS Chapter 278?
This action was brought by three water districts organized under KRS Chapter 74 and by two cities, each of which is located in Jefferson County outside the city limits of Louisville. The Water Company is the sole source of supply of pure water to more than 15,000 individual homes and businesses in the areas above mentioned. The three water districts and the two cities serve some 4,000 of such consumers, and the Water Company directly supplies approximately 11,000 of such water users. Perhaps between 60,000 and 70,000 persons are affected by the water service under consideration.
On December 11, 1939, the Water Company put in effect its present schedule of city rates and at that time fixed county rates at 125% of city rates. On July 1, 1946, the Water Company, without increasing city rates, raised county rates to 150% of city rates. On June 23, 1952, the Water Company, leaving city rates at the 1939 level, adopted a new schedule of rates which would increase the water rates paid by county consumers from 33 1/3% to 64%, depending on the volume of consumption. An examination of a tabulation of rates filed with the record indicates county consumers would be paying from 201% to 241% of the city rates if the intended raises are placed in force. The new schedule of rates was to become effective on and after July 1, 1952, and it was this proposed alteration in county rates that precipitated this litigation.
The petition sought a declaration of rights under Sections 639a-1 et seq., of the Civil Code of Practice to the end that the rates and services of the Water Company outside the corporate limits of Louisville are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the prayer in substance asked that the rate increases last mentioned be enjoined unless and until approved by the Commission. The Chancellor decreed the Water Company subject to regulation by the Commission as to its rates and services without the city limits and enjoined the inauguration of the new rate schedule in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The Water Company has appealed.
The Water Company argues, and not without some persuasion, that the legislative exemption of city-owned utilities from regulation by the Commission, set forth in KRS 278.010, implies no distinction between services rendered within and without the corporate limits of a city. The following definition and proviso contained in the foregoing section are relied upon to sustain this position:
'(3) 'Utility' means any person, except a water district organized under Chapter 74 or a city, who owns, controls, operates or manages any facility used or to be used for or in connection with:
* * *
'(d) The diverting, developing, pumping, impounding, distributing or furnishing of water to or for the public, for compensation; * * *.'
Although learned counsel for the Water Company insist that the foregoing language is susceptible of only one interpretation, which is that cities are not utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, this Court has construed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Covington v. Sohio Petroleum Co.
...Service Commission. City of Olive Hill v. Public Service Commission, 305 Ky. 249, 203 S.W.2d 68; Louisville Water Company, v. Preston Street Road Water District No. 1, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 26. By its judgment, the lower court did not fix the water rates to be charged appellee but determined the ......
-
Simpson County Water Dist. v. City of Franklin
...line of cases including City of Olive Hill v. Public Service Com'n, 305 Ky. 249, 203 S.W.2d 68 (1947); Louisville Water Co. v. Preston Street Road Water Dist., Ky., 256 S.W.2d 26 (1953) and Louisville Water Co. v. Public Service Com'n, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 537 (1958). McClellan was followed in C......
-
Louisville Water Co. v. Public Service Commission
...to outside customers. City of Olive Hill v. Public Service Commission, 305 Ky. 249, 203 S.W.2d 68; Louisville Water Co. v. Preston Street Road Water District, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 26; Fraley v. Beaver-Elkhorn Water District, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 536; City of Covington v. Sohio Petroleum Company, Ky.,......
-
McClellan v. Louisville Water Co.
...Public Service Commission. City of Olive Hill v. Public Service Commission, 305 Ky. 249, 203 S.W.2d 68; Louisville Water Company v. Preston Street Road Water District, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 26; Fraley v. Beaver Elkhorn Water District, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 536; City of Covington v. Sohio Petroleum, Ky.......