State on Inf. of Dalton v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1955
• Docket Number: No. 44550,44550
• Citation: 275 S.W.2d 225,365 Mo. 1
• Parties: STATE of Missourl, on the information of John M. DALTON, Attorney General, Relator. v. The METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, a body corporate, municipal corporation, and political subdivision of the State of Missouri; William C. E. Becker, John M. Bogdanor, Joseph L. Doran, William W. Martin, J. E. Williams, Jr., and George C. Willson, Trustees of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 225

275 S.W.2d 225

365 Mo. 1

STATE of Missourl, on the information of John M. DALTON Attorney General, Relator. v. The METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, a body corporate municipal corporation, and political subdivision of the State of Missouri; William C. E. Becker, John M. Bogdanor Joseph L. Doran, William W. Martin, J. E. Williams, Jr., and George C. Willson, Trustees of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondents.

No. 44550.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Jan. 10, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1955.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Welborn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.

John P. McCammon, St. Louis, for respondents.

HYDE, Judge.

Quo warranto against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and its trustees on the ground that it is operating under an invalid and unconstitutional plan. There is no dispute about the facts. The issue to be decided is whether the plan under which the District is organized and operating attempts to confer powers in excess of the constitutional authority under which the District was foumed.

Sec. 30(a), Art. VI (all constitutional references are to the Constitution of 1945, V.A.M.S.) authorizes the people of St. Louis City and St. Louis County 'to establish a metropolitan district or districts for the functional administration of services common to the area included therein'; and provides that this power 'shall be exercised by the vote of the people of the city and county upon a plan prepared by a board of freeholders'. The freeholders were properly selected to prepare a plan for a Metropolitan Sewer District and the plan prepared by them has been adopted by the voters. Relator contends the entire plan should be held unconstitutional and void as in excess of any constitutional authorization.

Sec. 30(b) provides that, upon adoption by the voters the plan 'shall become the organic law of the territory therein defined, and shall take the place of and supersede all laws, charter provisions and ordinances inconsistent therewith relating to said territory.' The authority to prepare such a district plan is a broad grant of legislative power to the freeholders (with confirmation by the voters) similar to the grants in Sections 18, 19 and 20, Article VI, giving certain counties and cities the right to frame, adopt and amend their own charters. It is even greater because their plan supersedes conflicting laws. It is a recognition of the fact that the St. Louis Metropolitan area has many problems which require 'services common to the area'; and it warrants provisions for powers, essential to preservation of the public health and welfare, for a district such as this one which, as hereinafter shown, exercises only governmental powers. The apparent intent is to give the freeholders, with the approval of the voters, power to do whatever the Legislature could ordinarily do with respect to the creation, organization and authority of such a district.

The District Plan adopted in this case provides for its incorporation and government (Art. 1), its boundaries and extensions (Art. 2), its powers (Art. 3), enforcement of its ordinances (Art. 4), its board of trustees (Art. 5), its executive director (Art. 6), its finances (Art. 7), its personnel (Art. 8), its improvements (Art. 9), its elections (Art. 10) and amendments (Art. 11). There are miscellanous provisions in Article 12 and there is a schedule fixing the date of the election on its adoption, the effective date of the plan, and the appointment, first meeting and first expenses of the trustees. Relator summarizes the powers of the District as set out in the plan, as follows:

'(1) To extend the existing sewer system;

'(2) To prevent pollution of water (Sec. 3.020(1));

'(3) To prepare and adopt plans, designs, estimates, etc., for sewer system, pumping and ventilating stations, disposal and treating plants, etc., as the Board may deem necessary (Sec. 3.020(2));

'(4) To construct extensions and additions on public or private property (Sec. 3.020(3));

'(5) To construct sewage disposal plants and to sell products or by-products manufactured in the course of sewage treatment (Sec. 3.020(4));

'(6) To acquire and to sell personal property (Sec. 3.020(5));

'(7) To exercise the power of eminent domain (Sec. 3.020(6));

'(8) To contract for the construction of sewers and their use with either private persons or public agencies. (Sec. 3.020(7));

'(9) And to charge therefor (Sec. 3.020(8));

'(10) To contract for and to operate facilities for the abatement of water pollution by industrial waste. (Sec. 3.020(9));

'(11) To seek and obtain grants in aid (Sec. 3.020(10));

'(12) To make social security agreements for the benefit of employees (Sec. 3.020(11));

'(13) To incur debts by borrowing or otherwise and issue appropriate evidence thereof (Sec. 3.020(13));

'(14) To issue tax anticipation warrants (Sec. 3.020(14));

'(15) To issue bonds payable (1) from taxes, (2) from special benefit assessments, (3) from revenues, or (4) from any combinations of such methods (Sec. 3.020(15));

'(16) To establish rates and charges for use of sewer facilities (Sec. 3.020(16));

'(17) To contract with municipalities or water companies for the collection of sewer service charges (Sec. 3.020(17));

'(18) To enter upon any lands for the purpose of making surveys (Sec. 3.020(18));

'(19) To approve plans and designs for sewers, pumping, disposal and treatment plants, and no such facilities shall be constructed without the approval of the District (Sec. 3.020(19));

'(20) To levy, assess and collect taxes on all taxable property in the District (Sec. 3.020(20));

'(21) To fix, levy and collect special benefit assessments on real property in the District (Sec. 3.020(21));

'(22) To provide a retirement system for employees (Sec. 3.020(22));

'(23) To require owners of real property to connect with sewer facilities of the District (Sec. 3.020(23));

'(24) To subdivide the District into subdistricts and provide the boundaries therefor (Sec. 3.020(24));

'(25) To make contracts and execute all instruments necessary in the premises (Sec. 3.020(12));

'(26) And to provide for the functional administration of other services when authorized by amendment of the Plan (Sec. 3.020(25));

'(27) To establish flood control lines and to control the use of private lands within said lines, to alter channels and regulate the erections of all structures within such flood lines (Sec. 3.030);

'(28) To police streams and prohibit dumping therein (Sec. 3.040); and '(29) To impose penalties for violations of its ordinances (Sec. 3.010).'

Relator says the Constitution only authorizes the establishment of a metropolitan district, 'for the functional administration of services common to the area included therein', and contends the above enumerated powers attempted to be granted in the plan are far in excess of requirements for that purpose. Relator argues for a narrow definition of the term 'functional administration' and says that a valid plan could only confer powers which were directly related to the operation of sewer facilities in the area included in the plan. Powers which relator specifically claims are beyond the authority to operate sewer facilities are those stated in Sec. 3.030 to establish building lines or floodway reservation lines along or adjacent to any watercourse or stream and to prevent building without permission within such lines, which relator says confers zoning powers; and those stated in Sec. 3.040 to police and clean out channels of streams, to prohibit dumping therein and to require removel of material deposited within the lines fixed by the District. Relator further claims the District includes areas which do not have common sewer problems because they drain through different watersheds. Relator also says 'the following may not properly be considered within the scope of the constitutional limitation of 'functional administration': (1) The condemnation of property authorized by Section 3.020(6) of the plan; (2) Unlimited borrowing authorized by Section 3.020(13); (3) The bonding of the District, authorized by Section 3.020(15); (4) The issuance of tax anticipation warrants, authorized by Section 3.020(14); and (5) The taking over by the District, without compensation, of all sewers in the area covered, under Section 3.010.'

However, the constitutional authority is not merely to prepare and adopt a plan for operation of sewer facilities. It does not say services common to sewers. Instead it authorized a plan for operation of 'services common to the area'. This is a very broad term and is not limited to any particular kind of services. Moreover, the authority is for a plan which 'shall become the organic law of the territory' on the subjects and purposes of the plan. Our view is that all services, common to the area for the protection of the public health and welfare in connection with drainage and sewage disposal, may be properly established for such a district as this. We think the term 'functional administration' of such services, as used in the Constitution, means the administration of such services so as to make them function properly for the purposes for which they were intended, namely: preservation and protection of the public health and welfare by drainage and sewage disposal. Drains and sewers are closely connected, with many related problems, and have a common purpose with respect to public health and welfare; so that similar principles are applicable to both. 17 Am.Jur. 780, Sec. 2; See also 28 C.J.S., Drains, Sec. 1, page 231. It is certainly proper for a single district to handle the problems of both. (See Chap. 248, especially Sec. 248.010 authorizing districts for construction of drains or sewers. Statutory references are to RSMo. and V.A.M.S.) Providing for drainage and sewerage is a governmental function and an exercise of the police power of the state. State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer...