Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson County v. Robb

• Decision Date: 21 November 1957
• Docket Number: No. 40997,40997
• Citation: 318 P.2d 387,182 Kan. 2
• Parties: WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY, in the State of Kansas, Appellee, v. George ROBB, State Auditor of Kansas, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 387

318 P.2d 387

182 Kan. 2

WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY, in the State of Kansas, Appellee, v. George ROBB, State Auditor of Kansas, Appellant.

No. 40997.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Nov. 21, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Laws o 1951, Ch. 240, as amended be Laws of 1953, Ch. 159 (G.S.1955 Supp., 19-3501 to 19-3521, incl.), and further amended by Laws of 1957, Ch. 192, examined and construed, and held not to be in contravention of the Bill of Rights, Sections 1, 2 and 18; Article 2, Sections 1, 16 and 17; and Article 5, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas; and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, for the reasons asserted by the appellant and as stated in the opinion.

2. Article 2, Section 16 of the Kansas Constitution is an imperative mandate to the legislature commanding it that no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in the title, but it is not necessary that the title be a synopsis or abstract of the entire act in all its details. It is sufficient if the title indicates clearly in general terms the scope of the act where the detailed provisions embraced therein are all germane to the subject expressed in the title. A title will be liberally construed when attacked as violating the foregoing constitutional provision.

3. Article 2, Section 17 of the Kansas Constitution, which provides that no special law shall be enacted where a general law can be made applicable, does not prohibit a special act by the legislature if a local situation exists which properly calls for legislative attention and the particular facts make a general law inapplicable.

4. Where an act provides the proceduce for creating and organizing water districts, corporate powers are not conferred directly upon a water district created thereunder, but upon compliance with the procedure corporate powers are vested in such corporation by the terms of the act.

5. Article 12, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution, providing that the legislature shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers, has no application to a quasi municipal body corporate organized pursuant to G.S.1955 Supp., 19-3502.

6. While the legislature cannot delegate its constitutional power to make a law (Article 2, Section 1, Kansas Constitution), it can make a law which delegates the power to determine some fact or state of things upon which such law shall become operative.

7. Where an act provides for the formation of a water district that would not result in the levy of special assessments on the property in the district, no property is taken from the residents of the district, and the imposition of a general ad valorem tax levy for the payment of preliminary expenses in a taxing district legally created is valid, and further it is not essential that residents of the distrct be givn special notice and a right to be heard prior to the imposition of the ad valorem tax. Under such circumstances property is not arbitrarily taken without due process of law.

8. Where new matter in an amended act is germane to the subject of the original act and the title of the original act is sufficiently broad to cover everything embraced in the provisions of the amended act, the requirements of Article 2, Section 16 of the Kansas Constitution are met.

9. Where an amendatory act provides a method by which alleged defects in the formation of an existing water district may be corrected, and does not in itself attempt to cure any defect in the creation or formation of such district, it is a curative act and does not come within the scope of the constitutional prohibition against special legislation.

10. Where county commissioners are delegated authority by the legislature in the formation of a water district to determine whether or not a proposed water district is of public utility, the guide or standard for the commissioners to follow is sufficient, and such legislative act has not improperly delegated legislative power to the county commissioners. (Article 2, Sections 1 and 21, Kansas Constitution.)

11. Judicial examination of any law enacted by the legislature proceeds on the assumption that it is valid unless it contravenes an express inhibition of the Constitution or one necessarily implied from some express affirmative provision of that instrument, and an act of the legislature is not to be stricken down on the ground it is unconstitutional unless infringement of the superior law is clear beyond reasonable doubt.

Fred W. Rausch, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., was with him on the briefs, for appellant.

Floyd F. Shields of Topeka, and Robert B. Fizzell, Kansas City, Mo., argued the cause, and Harry W. Colmery and James E. Smith, Topeka, and Robert B. Fizzell, Jr., and Norman E. Gaar, Kansas City, Mo., were with them on the briefs, for appellee.

SCHROEDER, Justice.

Appellee, Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas, filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the district court of Shawnee County, Kansas, to require the appellant, State Auditor, to register $20,000,000 principal amount of water revenue bonds of Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas, and interest coupons attached thereto.

The appellee Water District was organized, created and established under and in compliance with the provisions of Laws of 1951, Ch. 240, as amended by Laws of 1953, Ch. 159 (G.S.1955 Supp., 19-3501 to 19-3521, incl.), said statute having been further amended by Laws of 1957, Ch. 192.

A five-member governing body for appellee Water District was duly elected on December 15, 1953. Thereafter, appellee's water district board appointed a survey commission to make an investigation of and report on all public improvements necessary to secure and insure an adequate water supply and distribution system. The survey commission made such report to the water district board on or about February 17, 1956, whereupon the water district board prepared a plan which it deemed the most practical and economical for an adequate water distribution system and supply of water for the appellee District. This plan, approved by the appellee's board on or about August 6, 1956, provided for the acquisition by purchase, condemnation or otherwise of the water supply and distribution system situated in the District owned by Kansas City Suburban Water Company, Inc., and improving, extending and enlarging said system, all at an estimated aggregate cost of $20,000,000. The plan further provided for the issuance of water revenue bonds of the appellee District not in excess of said amount to pay such cost.

The above plan was submitted to the voters in the District on November 17, 1956, for their approval. The exact proposition submitted to the voters at said election was as follows:

'Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, shall be authorized to obtain by construction, purchase, condemnation or otherwise, a water supply and distribution system at an estimated aggregate cost to the Water District of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000), and to issue revenue bonds not in excess of such amount in payment of the same.

'Yes _____

'No _____'

Notice of the foregoing election was duly given as required by said statutes, the election was duly held on November 17, 1956, and the proposition submitted was approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the appellee District voting on the proposition, the vote being 8,813 ballots for said proposition to 1,750 ballots against said proposition.

Pursuant to Laws of 1957, Ch. 192, § 1, the board of county commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas, on or about April 22, 1957, adopted a resolution fixing May 17, 1957, at 10:00 o'clock a. m., at the public hearing room in the Courthouse in Olathe, Kansas, as the time and place for a public hearing as to whether or not the appellee Water District is of public utility. Notice of such hearing was duly given as required by said statute and such hearing was duly held on May 17, 1957, at the hour and place specified in said notice. After hearing all persons desiring to be heard, the county commissioners adopted a resolution finding and determining that the creation and establishment of the District will be of public utility, and ratified and confirmed the creation and establishment of the appellee District.

Thereafter, appellee's board negotiated and entered into an agreement with Kansas City Suburban Water Company, Inc., dated July 17, 1957, to purchase, subject to the approval of the voters of the appellee District, the water supply and distribution system of the Company situated in the District, the base purchase price of such system being $14,531.279.46 as of December 31, 1956, plus additional adjustments to be determined as of the close of business on the date of closing. After notice was duly given, a special election was held in the District on September 7, 1957, to ratify the purchase of the water supply and distribution system owned by Kansas City Suburban Water Company, Inc., in accordance with said negotiated agreement and at an estimated aggregate cost to the Water District of $15,250,000. The exact proposition submitted to the voters at said election was as follows:

'Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, shall be authorized to acquire by purchase, in accordance with the terms of the negotiated agreement published in connection with the notice of this election, the water supply and distribution system of Kansas City Surburban Water Company, Inc., at an estimated aggregate cost to the water district of Fifteen Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($15,250,000).

'Yes _____

'No _____'

The proposition submitted was duly approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the appellee District voting on the proposition, the vote having been 4,998 ballots for said proposition to 88 ballots against said proposition.

Thereupon appellee's board adopted a resolution authorizing the...