Ruggles v. Padgett
| Decision Date | 21 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17936,17936 |
| Citation | 240 S.C. 494,126 S.E.2d 553 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. E. RUGGLES and Joseph B. Gilchrist, Individually and as Representatives of Other Taxpayers and Homeowners in Hanahan Public Service District, Appellants, v. Bennie PADGETT, V. B. Staton, E. E. Mosley, J. D. Kelley and Frank Sineri, Individually and as the Hanahan Public Service District Commission; Hanahan Public Service District, a body politic and corporate; Randell C. Stoney, C. Fletcher Carter, Jr., J. Palmer Gaillard, Jr., Wilson H. Orvin and Clarence W. Legerton, Individually and as the Commissioners of Public Works of the City of Charleston, and Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents. |
William L. Shipley, Moncks Corner, for appellant.
Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, Dennis & Dennis, Moncks Corner, William C. Ehrhardt, Charleston, Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.
This action is one under the 'Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act', Sections 10-2001 et seq., 1952 Code of Laws. The purpose of the action is to determine the constitutionality of certain provisions of two statutes enacted by the General Assembly in 1960, intended to furnish a method for the establishment and financing of a public sewage disposal system for Hanahan Public Service District in Berkeley County. The questions for decision are set out hereafter.
Hanahan Public Service District, hereinafter referred to as the District, was first created by the General Assembly of this State in 1942 by Act No. 784, 42 Stats. 1989. It now has an area of about five square miles. The District, located adjacent to the North Charleston area of Charleston County, is thickly populated and is a part of metropolitan Charleston. It is basically a residential area with a population of about 7,500 persons. At the present time there are only a few areas of the District served by sewer lines. These existing sewer lines were built in part by private corporations at their own expense, and in part by the District from the proceeds of ad valorem taxes. The percentage of residences served by public sewers is small. Sewage for the most part is handled by septic tanks and it is conceded that the nature of the soil is such that in many instances their functioning is poor. It is an admitted fact that on frequent occasions raw sewage flows in open ditches.
The proximity of the District to the water filtration plant of the City of Charleston, operated by the Commissioners of Public Works of that City, hereinafter referred to as the Charleston Commission, makes possible the use of water from the Charleston system by residents of the District. The Charleston system has been extended to the great majority of residences in the District, and those utilizing this service receive water through individual meters. A small portion of the District is served by wooden water mains originally installed by the Federal Government during World War II. This system, which is owned by the District, also obtains its water supply from the Charleston system.
In 1960 the General Assembly enacted into law a statute, Act No. 957 of 1960, 51 Stats. 2239, which makes it possible for the District to construct an extensive sewer system, thereafter designed, to serve substantially all of the District.
The Act provides methods by which the money required for the construction of the system may be raised. Bonds are to be issued payable either solely or primarily from revenues derived by the District from those who will utilize the sewer facilities to be constructed. If general obligation bonds are to be issued, they must be voted, Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. If bonds payable solely from sewer revenues are issued, they need not be voted.
In order to make certain that revenues will be available to provide debt service on the bonds of the District, it is first specifically empowered to adopt regulations making mandatory the connection to and use of the sewer system.
Section 7 of the Act provides:
The District proposes to avail itself of this authorization by the adoption of a resolution making it mandatory for all to whom sewer service is available to use the same. No exceptions are to be permitted and the appellants here, whose septic tanks are presently functioning properly, must discontinue the use of septic tanks and dispose of all sewage originating on their premises through the means of the public sewer system.
In order to provide an effective means of collecting the sewer charge to be made for service by the sewer system, the District is empowered to enter into a contract with the Charleston Commission under the terms of which the Charleston Commission will collect the sewer charge for the District by combining it with the water charge rendered by the Charleston Commission and thereupon rendering water service only upon the condition that unless the total bill for water and sewer service be paid, water service will be disconnected. The effect of this plan will of course effectively disconnect sewer service, for to use sewer lines, water is required. The record here discloses that following the 1960 enactment, the District and the Charleston Commission have entered into a contract, which as to the Charleston Commission is authorized by Act No. 854 of 1960, 51 Stats. 1987, under which it has been agreed as follows:
1. The District will issue bonds in an amount sufficient to
(a) Pay for the cost of constructing its proposed sewage disposal system; and
(b) Provide $30,000.00 for the purpose of converting the wooden water mains now operated by the District into a conventional water distribution system with customary pipes and meters.
2. The District will convey its reconstructed water system to the Charleston Commission as the primary consideration for the undertaking on the part of the Charleston Commission to collect for the District its sewer charge as a part of a joint bill to be rendered to each water customer of the Charleston Commission under an arrangement by which the Charleston Commission will disconnect water service if the customer fails to pay the combined bill for both water and sewer service.
3. The District will also compensate the Charleston Commission for its expenses in billing and collecting its sewer charge.
4. The contract will extend for a period of time not shorter than the life of the last maturing bonds to be issued by the District.
It will be seen by the foregoing that if the plan is consummated, the Charleston Commission will own and operate all water distribution facilities in the District. The District for its part will own and operate all of the sewage disposal facilities in the District. All residences and commercial establishments which are accessible to the public sewage disposal system will be required to connect to and use the public sewer system. All persons utilizing water and sewer service will be required to pay the water charge and the sewer charge as a part of a single combined bill and if such bill is not paid in its entirety, water service will be disconnected.
The contemplated plan has invoked challenges of unconstitutionality on the part of the appellants. These challenges raise the following question which are disposed of in the order here stated:
1. May the General Assembly by special legislation delegate police powers to the District enabling it to adopt mandatory regulations requiring persons within the District to connect to and use the District's sewer system?
2. Has the General Assembly the power to authorize the District to impose a monthly or quarterly charge upon those whose property is connected with the sewer system for the purpose of maintaining the same and providing funds to pay the principal and interest of bonds issued to finance the cost of the construction of the sewer system?
3. Does the agreement of the Charleston Commission to discontinue water service of those offering to pay for the same simply because such party refuses to pay at the same time the sewer charge imposed by the District deprive such persons of the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions?
4. Does the Charleston Commission have lawful power to agree to the undertakings assumed by it under the contract with the District?
5. Do the provisions of the act authorizing the District to improve its water system through the proceeds of bonds payable from sewer charges, and thereupon convey such improved systems to the Charleston Commission, deprive the taxpayers of the District of property without due process of law?
In the relatively recent case of Mills Mill et al. v. Hawkins et al., 232 S.C. 515, 103 S.E.2d 14, this Court, although divided, held that the General Assembly might, through the means of special legislation, create a special purpose district for the purpose of protecting the public health. Against a challenge that the subject was one for general legislation, and that the special act violated the provisions of Article III, Section 34, Subdivision 9 of the State Constitution, this Court held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Condon
... ... The special legislation at issue in Hammond was impermissible under article III, § 34, precisely because it involved penal sanctions. Ruggles v. Padgett, 240 S.C. 494, 126 S.E.2d 553 (1962) ... In Thompson, supra, we considered the constitutionality of a local option ... ...
-
Edris v. Sebring Utilities Commission
...premises are violated by shutting off the water for nonpayment of the bill for use of the sewage disposal system. See Ruggles v. Padgett, 1962, 240 S.C. 494, 126 S.E.2d 553; Metropolitan Utilities District v. City of Omaha, 1961, 171 Neb. 609, 107 N.W.2d 397; Michelson v. City of Grand Isla......
-
Distin v. Bolding, 17943
... ... The plan here is in many ways similar to that recently upheld by this Court in the case of Ruggles et al. v. Padgett et al., S.C., 126 S.E.2d 553. There are however differences which require consideration. In the Ruggles case, the Hanahan Public ... ...
-
Newton v. Hanlon
... ... In the exercise of that power it may require one whose property is adequately served by a septic tank to connect with the extended system. Ruggles v. Padgett, 240 S.C. 494, 126 S.E.2d 553 ... The property of one of the appellants will not be on any line included in the proposed ... ...