Wilson v. City of San Bernardino

• Decision Date: 22 November 1960
• Citation: 9 Cal.Rptr. 431,186 Cal.App.2d 603
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Fred A. WILSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a Municipal Corporation, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Respondents. Civ. 6332.

Page 431

9 Cal.Rptr. 431

186 Cal.App.2d 603

Fred A. WILSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a Municipal Corporation, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Respondents.

Civ. 6332.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Nov. 22, 1960.

Hearing Denied Jan. 18, 1961.

Fred A. Wilson, in pro. per.

Ralph H. Prince, City Atty. of San Bernardino, James L. King, Surr & Hellyer and John B. Surr, San Bernardino, for respondents.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

In this action by plaintiff and appellant, in propria persona, and as a taxpayer, for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 against defendants and respondents City of San Bernardino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'City'), and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (hereinafter referred to as 'District'), he seeks a declaration that the City is not a part of said defendant District, as the result of an election called by the board of supervisors and held under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Stats.1911 p. 1290 as amended, Deering's General Laws, Act 5243, West's Ann.Water Code Appendix § 20-1 et seq.), wherein the unincorporated area in the valley surrounding and including the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands and Colton were involved, to declare plaintiff's and other taxpayers' rights and duties in respect thereto; to perpetually restrain said District from levying or assessing any taxes or imposing liens on any property situated in the city of San Bernardino. situate in the city of San Bernardino. found generally, that the City was a municipal corporation, operating under a charter approved by the Legislature on February 8, 1905 (Stats.1905 p. 940), and as amended in May, 1921, adding to article 1, section 1, thereof the following clause:

'The City of San Bernardino may make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in this charter, and in respect to other matters, it shall be subject to general laws.'

(See Stats.1921 p. 2242); that on October 27, 1953, the board of supervisors passed a resolution calling a special election, within that portion of San Bernardino County therein described, for the purpose of submitting to the electors of said portion of said county the following proposition:

'Shall the proposition to organize San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 be adopted?';

and that at said election the board passed a resolution declaring that 12,400 votes were cast for the proposition and 11,391 votes against its adoption; that on February 17, 1954, the Secretary of State issued a certificate that said portion of said county was duly incorporated as a municipal water district, and since the issuance of said certificate it and the directors thereof have exercised the powers conferred by said Act and levied a tax of $.06 upon each one hundred dollars of the assessed value of the real property described therein.

It appears that in designating the election precincts, unincorporated lands surrounding the city of San Bernardino were consolidated with and included with city election precincts and as a result it was impossible to determine from the returns how many votes from within the city were for or against the proposition. Although the votes of the few surrounding precincts (total of 203), when considered with the vote cast in the city, lacked 63 votes of constituting a majority in favor of the proposition the total vote cast in the entire district showed a majority of votes in favor of the proposition.

The court found that the number of votes cast in the city of San Bernardino in favor of said proposition was unknown, but, based on the certificate of incorporation and the presumption of regularity arising therefrom, the court found that the majority of the electors within the city of San Bernardino did vote in favor of the proposition and thereby consented to the proposition that said City be included within said District. It further found that this proceeding was not commenced within three months from the date of the certificate of the Secretary of State and accordingly this action is barred by the provisions of section 11 of the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 as amended; that a proceeding in quo warranto was the required action to be taken to test the questions here raised and that the attorney general has never consented to bringing this action; that the formation of the District here involved was not a municipal affair of the City. Judgment was entered denying plaintiff relief.

Plaintiff contends on this appeal that defendant City, being a charter city, had 'exclusive powers over its 'municipal affairs" and such power is "free from any interference by the State through general laws." Citing such authority as City of Glendale v. Trondsen, 48 Cal.2d 93, 98, 308 P.2d 1; West Coast Advertising Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 14 Cal.2d 516, 521, 95 P.2d 138; City of Pasadena v. Charleville, 215 Cal. 384, 389, 10 P.2d 745; City of South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co., 152 Cal. 579, 93 P. 490; 34 Cal.Jur.2d 752; Cal.Const. art. XI, sec. 8 subd. (g). He therefore argues that since the exclusive power over its water supply is vested in the City, and the court did not and could not determine that that power had been exercised affirmatively, i. e., that a majority of the electors of the City had voted in favor of the formation of the District, it necessarily follows that the City has not been included in the District.

The main question is whether the formation and operation of the District, as formed, constituted a 'municipal affair' within the meaning of California Constitution, Article XI, sections 6, 8.

In City of Pasadena v. Chamberlain, 204 Cal. 653, 269 P. 630, a somewhat similar question was presented. There the proceeding was one by the city of Pasadena to compel the city clerk to certify to the passage and to transmit a copy of an ordinance adopted under the terms of the Metropolitan Water District Act by the city of Pasadena for formation of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Under the Act, the formation of the district had been initiated by resolution of the city Los Angeles, and the ordinance by the city of Pasadena was one approving of the formation of the district. Pasadena then was a charter city. At pages 659-660 of the decision, at page 633 of 269 P. it was argued by the defendant clerk that to permit the initiating municipality to impose duties upon other municipalities, or to vest them with powers in the course of the formation of the district which were not within the duties and powers of such other cities as set out in their respective charters would be invalid as violating Article XI, section 6, of the Constitution, which expressly delegates to chartered cities the right to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to their own municipal affairs. In disposing of this point, the court said:

'This contention raises the question as to whether the general purpose to be subserved by the organization of the metropolitan water district through the co-operation of several municipalities, as contemplated in the terms of said act, is or is not a municipal affair. It may be admitted that, generally speaking, the distribution of water within municipalities would be as to each of such municipalities a municipal affair, but it would be entirely too narrow an interpretation of the purposes and scope of the Metropolitan Water District Act to hold that because the distribution of water for domestic use in each of a number of the municipalities within a designated area is a municipal affair, the formation of a common purpose for the acquisition of water in large quantities from sources outside of such municipalities, and even outside of the area within which they exist, and the distribution of such water, when so acquired, among such cities, in accordance with a common plan, and with a view to achieving equitability in the distribution and use of such water, would in any sense be, as to each or any of such combined municipalities, a municipal affair. The impossibility or impracticability of any one or more of such municipalities acting separately and independently in the acquisition and distribution of such water would seem to argue conclusively that in achieving such object by the means provided for in said act the municipalities engaged therein could not be held to be engaged in the conduct of a merely municipal affair.'

It is true that the Metropolitan Water District Act contains the provision that after the initial action is taken, the question of whether or not the residents and electors of each and all of the municipalities within the proposed area shall approve or disapprove the action thus taken is to be committed in each separate municipality to a special election and as to each the Act is not to be further operative until a majority of the electors shall at such special election approve the initiatory proceedings which have thus far been taken. We do not believe that in the absence of such a provision in the Act, it was intended that a different conclusion would have been reached. This same reasoning was applied in Henshaw v. Foster, 176 Cal. 507, 169 P. 82, 83. That decision involved a municipal water district organized under the same act as the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. In that matter, plaintiffs, owners of land in San Diego County, sued to enjoin the board or supervisors of that county from calling an election to determine whether the ...