Santa Cruz Irr. Dist. v. City of Tucson
| Decision Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 10559,10559 |
| Citation | 494 P.2d 24,108 Ariz. 152 |
| Parties | , 4 ERC 1012 SANTA CRUZ IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF TUCSON, a Municipal Corporation, et al.; The Honorable Joe JACOBSON, Judge of the Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona, Division 11, Real Parties in Interest, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Wolfe, Greer & Mustacci by David K. Wolfe, Tucson, for petitioner.
Herbert E. Williams, City Atty. by Richard H. Day, Asst. City Atty., Tucson, for respondents The City of Tucson and Frank Brooks.
Murphy, Vinson & Hazlett by James M. Murphy, Tucson, for respondents Rosens and Brophys.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by James A. Riggins, Jr., and Riney B. Salmon II, Phoenix, for amicus curiae Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1.
This Special Action was commenced by the Santa Cruz Irrigation District against the City of Tucson and others to enjoin the construction, extension and service of domestic water from Tucson's lines or water system to any portion of a 22-acre tract within the District boundaries. We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Constitution of Arizona, Article VI, § 4, A.R.S., and ordered a stay in all actions pending in the Superior Court of Pima County until determination of this proceeding.
The District asserts that it is an irrigation district, comprising approximately 365 acres, organized pursuant to A.R.S. § 45--1501 et seq.; that on March 18, 1960, the City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, annexed the area encompassed by the District; that approximately 22 acres in the center of the District were withdrawn from cultivation and a mobile home development was commenced by respondents Rosens and Brophys with plans to develop approximately 120 homes; that the District furnishes domestic water to one consumer on the 22 acres (15 on the 365); and that, over the objections of the District, the Rosens and Brophys contracted with Tucson for construction of a water system and for delivery of water to and in the area embraced within the development.
Respondents initially, as plaintiffs, petitioned the Superior Court of Pima County, praying that it issue a temporary restraining order against the City enjoining it from delivering water within the District's boundaries. A temporary restraining order was issued, but thereafter the Superior Court dissolved the restraining order and expressly denied respondent's request for a permanent injunction. The Court expressed the opinion that the District only had a claim for relief against the City upon the theory of inverse eminent domain. Accordingly, it directed that the action proceed to trial on that issue. The application to this Court by the District for an injunction followed.
Every issue here presented has been settled adversely to the District by our decision in City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, 92 Ariz. 91, 373 P.2d 722 (1962). There, as here, the Salt River Project was an agricultural improvement district organized for the purpose of reclaiming lands susceptible of irrigation. As an incident to its principal purpose, it maintained and operated an electric power system consisting of transmission and distribution lines, including retail electric services in rural areas. In the years following the district's rural electrification program, the City of Mesa extended its corporate limits so that the district was serving customers within Mesa whom the city wished to supply by its electric services and facilities.
In holding that Mesa could condemn the district's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HOHOKAM IRR. AND DRAINAGE DIST. v. APS
...authority to sell electricity is incidental to its primary purpose of providing water for irrigation. Santa Cruz Irr. Dist. v. City of Tucson, 108 Ariz. 152, 153, 494 P.2d 24, 25 (1972) (citing City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist., 92 Ariz. at 104, 373 P.2d ......
-
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist. No. 1
...P.2d 76, 80 (1976), and when the activity is incidental to the primary purpose of the district. Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson, 108 Ariz. 152, 153, 494 P.2d 24, 25 (1972); City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation and Drainage District, 107 Ariz. 117, 122-23, 483 ......
-
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary Dist. v. Ferguson
...primarily governmental functions of other government entities. Taylor v. Roosevelt Irrigation District; Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. Tucson, 108 Ariz. 152, 494 P.2d 24 (1972); City of Mesa v. Salt River Project, 92 Ariz. 91, 373 P.2d 722 (1962); Valley National Bank v. Electrical Distr......
-
Flowing Wells Irr. Dist. v. City of Tucson
... ... at 103-4, 373 P.2d at 734-5 ... The City cites Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson, 108 Ariz ... [176 Ariz. 625] 152, 153, 494 P.2d 24, 25 (1972) (which relies upon the City of Mesa case ... ...