Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. v. Marquardt

• Decision Date: 21 February 1963
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 379 P.2d 28 The METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. James J. MARQUARDT, as Executive Secretary etc., Respondent; The STATE of California, Real Party In Interest. L. A. 26662.

Page 724

28 Cal.Rptr. 724

59 Cal.2d 159, 379 P.2d 28

The METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. James J. MARQUARDT, as Executive Secretary etc., Respondent;

The STATE of California, Real Party In Interest.

L. A. 26662.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 21, 1963.

As Modified March 20, 1963.

Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Alan G. Campbell, Donald J. Whitlock, O'Melveny & Myers, James J. Beebe, Pierce Works, Los Angeles, and E. G. Chandler, San Franciso, for petitioner.

McCutchen, Black, Harnagel & Shea, Harold A. Black and Jack T. Swafford, Los Angeles, for respondent.

John A. Nejedly, Dist. Atty., Contra Costa, Robert H. Betzenderfer, Deputy Dist. Atty., Richard W. Dickenson, County Counsel, San Joaquin, Gard Chisholm, Dist. Atty., Alpine, James E. Deasy, County Counsel, Amador, Charles H. Andrews, County Counsel, Butte, Joseph S. Huberty, Dist. Atty., Calaveras, Harold R. Wilsey, Jr., Dist. Atty., Colusa, J. Ralph Arnold, Dist. Atty., Del Norte, Jack R. Winkler, Dist. Atty., El Dorado, Clyde H. Larimer, Dist. Atty., Glenn, Thomas Montgomery, Jr., County Counsel, Humboldt, Fredric S. Crump, Dist. Atty., Lake, James E. Pardee, County Counsel, Lassen, Frank S. Petersen, Dist. Atty., Mendocino, Paul B. Baker, Dist. Atty., Modoc, N. Edward Denton, Dist. Atty., Mono, Gordon I. Smith, Dist. Atty., Sierra, Albert H. Newton, Jr., Dist. Atty., Siskiyou, James M. Shumway, County Counsel, Solano, Henry J. Goff, Jr., Dist. Atty., Tehama, Donald R. Kennedy, Dist. Atty., Trinity, Anthony B. Avilla, Dist. Atty., Yolo, Roy J. Gargano, Kronick, Moskovitz & Vanderlaan, Stanley W. Kronick, Adolph Moskovitz, Richard W. Abbe, Dist. Atty., Shasta, Calvin E. Baldwin, County Counsel, Tulare, Robert E. Moock, Visalia, and John H. Sutter, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of respondent.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Robery Burton, Deputy Atty. Gen., B. Abbott Goldberg and Ralph Alpert, Sacramento, of counsel, for real party in interest.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel James J. Marquardt, the executive secretary of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, to take certain procedural steps necessary to carry out a contract for the delivery of water from the facilities of the State Water Resources Development System to the district. The contract was made on November 4, 1960, between the district and the State of California, acting through its Department of Water Resources, pursuant to the California Water Resources Development Bond Act (Wat.Code, S 12930 ET SEQ.), the sections of the water code relating to the Central Valley Project (Wat. Code, § 11100 et seq.), and other legislation. Marquardt's refusal to act is based on his assertion that the contract is invalid.

Mandamus is available to compel an official to perform a ministerial duty, and in a proceeding brought for that purposes courts may determine the validity of governmental contracts and laws authorizing prospective bond issues. (City of Palm Springs v. Ringwald, 52 Cal.2d 620, 622-623, 342 P.2d 898; City of Walnut Creek v. Silveira, 47 Cal.2d 804, 807, 306 P.2d 453; Golden Gate Bridge, etc., dist. v. Felt, 214 Cal. 308, 315-318, 5 P.2d 585; La Mesa, etc., Irr. Dist. v. Halley, 197 Cal. 50, 239 P. 719; Montecito County Water Dist. v. Doulton, 193 Cal. 398, 224 P. 747; Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Hamilton, 177 Cal. 119, 169 P. 1028; cf. City and County of San Francisco v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 106 P.2d 369.) The questions raised here with respect to the validity of the contract may be divided into two parts those relating to the constitutionality of the bond act and those based on the assumption that the bond act is constitutional.

I. Constitutionality of the Bond Act

A. Does the bond act violate the provision of article IV, section 24, of the Constitution that every act shall embrace but one subject and that the subject shall be expressed in the title?

The bond act is entitled: 'An act to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 12930) to Part 6 of Division 6 of the Water Code, relating to provision for the development of the water resources of the State by providing the funds necessary therefor through the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California, and by providing for the handling and disposition of said funds, and providing for the submission of this act to a vote of the people at the general election to be held in the month of November, 1960.' (Stats.1959, ch. 1762, p. 4234.)

A determination of this question requires a brief summary of the provisions added to the Water Code by the bond act. ¹ Section 12931 provides that the object of the act is the construction of a State Water Resources Development System which is to be composed of the facilities enumerated in section 12934, subdivision (d), and certain additional facilities. The principal facilities enumerated in subdivision (d) of section 12934 are: (1) a multiple purpose dam and reservoir on the Feather River in the vicinity of Oroville, together with other dams and reservoirs upstream, (2) an aquenduct system to distribute water to various parts of the state, and (3) master levees, control structures, channel improvements, and appurtenant facilities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to conserve water and transfer it across the Delta. Subdivision (d) also lists: (4) facilities for removal of drainage water from the San Joaquin Valley, (5) facilities for the generation and transmission of electrical energy, and (6) water development facilities in local areas as provided in section 12880 et seq. The facilities authorized by the act in addition to those enumerated in subdivision (d) include such other facilities as the department deems necessary and desirable to meet local needs and to augment the supplies of water in the Delta. (§§ 12931, 12938.) A bond issue is authorized in the amount of $1,750,000,000 (§ 12935), and money is appropriated from several sources to meet the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of the system, including the payment of bonds with interest. ² Some of the facilities referred to in the act are authorized only by it, while some are authorized by other statutory provisions as well.

Section 24 of article IV must be construed liberally so as to uphold legislation all parts of which are reasonably germane, and a provision which is auxiliary to and promotive of the main purpose of the act or has a necessary and natural connection with that purpose is germane within this rule. Provisions governing projects so related and interdependent as to constitute a single scheme may be properly included within a single act, and, the general purpose of a statute being declared, the details provided for its accomplishment will be regarded as necessary incidents. (Perry v. Jordan, 34 Cal.2d 87, 92-93, 207 P.2d 47.)

Directly in point is Tarpey v. McClure, 190 Cal. 593, 597, 213 P. 983, 986, which upheld the California Water Storage District Act (Stats.1921, ch. 914, p. 1727) against the contention that it violated section 24 of article IV by containing more than one subject, namely, provisions for flood control, storage and distribution of irrigation water, drainage and reclamation of land, and generation and use of hydroelectric energy as a byproduct. The court held that the act had but a single object, i. e., 'the better control and utilization of water or, stated differently, the reclamation and use of waste water, and, incident thereto, the reclamation and use of waste land.'

Similarly, all provisions of the present bond act must be considered as relating to one subject. Both the drainage and the electrical energy provisions are germane to the development of the water resources of the state. The Legislature clearly intended them to be integral parts the system (see sections 12931 and 12934, subdivision (d) supra), and there is a reasonable basis for treating them in this manner. Successful irrigation may be dependent on adequate drainage, and this is the situation in the San Joaquin Valley. Power development is an essential part of the project, both to make it economically feasible and to provide the energy required for pumping in connection with the transportation of water. The provision for water development facilities for local areas contained in section 12934, subdivision (d)(6), supra, does not constitute a separate subject because section 12880, subdivision (b), provides that assistance to such local projects may be given only 'if it is determined that the project substantially conforms to The California Water Plan,' which is described in section 10004.

The title of the bond act is broad enough to express the whole subject contained in the act. Under section 24 of article IV 'the title of an act need not embrace an abstract or catalog of its contents, but need only contain a reasonable intimation of the matters under legislative consideration.' (Harris v. Fitting, 9 Cal.2d 117, 120, 69 P.2d 833, 835; Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507, 510, 289 P. 160.) Here the title shows that the act relates to the development of the water resources of the state not only by providing for funds through the issuance of bonds but also 'by providing for the handling and disposition of said funds' and the latter part of the title is sufficient to include authorization for the construction of the works which were not previously authorized.

B. Does the bond act violate the provision of article IV, section 34, of the Constitution that 'No bill making an appropriation of money, except the Budget Bill, shall contain more than one item of appropriation, and that for one single and certain purpose to be therein expressed'?

What is said in the preceding subdivision of this opinion about the singleness of subject of the bond act in relation to article IV, section 24, obviously applies to the singleness of purpose with respect to article IV, section 34, and therefore all appropriations...