Opinion
No. 74-174
Decided December 31, 1974. Rehearing denied January 28, 1975. Certiorari granted March 10, 1975.
From a declaratory judgment decreeing that water district is obligated to supply water and fire hydrants to fire protection district without charge, water district appealed.
Affirmed
1. SPECIAL DISTRICTS — Overlap Area — Fire Protection District — Water District — Must Supply Water — Without Charge — Repair — Pay For — Fire Hydrants. As regards certain overlap area located within both a fire protection district and a water and sanitation district, the fire protection district is not obligated to provide the water it uses in fire protection therein, nor to pay the water district therefor; and the water district must continue to repair and pay for standby charges on the fire hydrants located within the overlap area.
Appeal from the District Court of the County of Jefferson, Honorable Winston W. Wolvington, Judge.
Robinson-Robinson, P.C., William Hedges Robinson, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.
Myers, Woodford Hoppin, L. Thomas Woodford, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff, Alameda Water and Sanitation District, appeals from a declaratory judgment decreeing that it is obligated to supply water and fire hydrants to defendant, Bancroft Fire Protection District, without charge. We affirm.
Alameda is a quasi-municipal corporation, organized in 1952 as a water and sanitation district. In 1960 it became a metropolitan district. It is composed of several small, non-contiguous areas, and, except for one small portion, is contained within the boundaries of defendant, Bancroft, another quasi-municipal corporation organized in 1947 for the purpose of fire protection. Alameda obtains its water from four sources. These sources have different provisions and rates for billing private customers and Alameda itself for fire hydrant service and water used in fire protection. The fire hydrants in the area were originally installed by builders and contractors when the water mains were installed. Alameda has been paying under protest for the repair of the fire hydrants contained within the areas of Alameda and Bancroft which overlap. Alameda demanded that Bancroft pay for fire hydrant repair, standby charges, and the water it uses in fire protection. Bancroft refused and this action followed.
The case was previously before this court in Alameda Water Sanitation District v. Bancroft Fire Protection District, 32 Colo. App. 350, 513 P.2d 728, after the trial court dismissed Alameda's claim without explanation. We remanded the case directing that the trial court enter an order declaring the rights of the parties. On remand, the court found that as a matter of law the intent of the relevant statutes was that a water district supply water without charge to a fire protection district within its boundaries. It also found that the water district should be charged with maintenance of water-related facilities.
The first issue on appeal is the construction of the statutes, as set out herein so as to determine which district is to pay for the water and fire hydrants used in fire protection within the water district.
When Bancroft was organized in 1947, the duties of a fire protection district were the same as those presently given in C.R.S. 1963, 89-6-2(1): "A fire protection district is one to supply protection against fire by any available means."
When Alameda was organized in 1952, the duties of a water and sanitation district were the same as those stated in C.R.S. 1963, 89-5-2(1): "A water district is one to supply water for domestic purposes by any available means, and for that purpose any such district shall have power to extend its waterlines to the source of water supply outside the district." The duties of Alameda remained the same when it became a metropolitan district in 1960. However, by 1969 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 89-3-2(1), the duties of a metropolitan district were changed to read, as follows: "A water district is one to supply water for fire, domestic, and other public and private purposes by any available means, and to provide all necessary or proper equipment and appurtenances incident thereto." The statutes are silent as to whether compensation should be paid by a fire protection district to a water and sanitation district or metropolitan district for facilities and water furnished by the water district to the fire district.
[1] In Valley Water District v. City of Littleton, 32 Colo. App. 286, 512 P.2d 644, the court ruled that the city had no obligation to provide fire hydrant and water service in a portion of territory the city had annexed which was already served with water by the water district. Like Bancroft here, Littleton had the general power to provide fire protection:
"But the existence of this power does not impose upon the city the obligation to provide a system of fire hydrants in annexed territory where the hydrant and water service is already provided by an existing service maintained by a quasi-municipal corporation. Durnford v. Thornton, 29 Colo. App. 349, 483 P.2d 977."
The court concluded that Littleton had no obligation to pay Valley for the water supplied. Applying these principles to the instant case, we conclude that the court here correctly found that Bancroft is not obligated to provide the water it uses in fire protection, nor to pay Alameda therefor and Alameda must continue to repair and pay for standby charges on the fire hydrants located within the overlap area.
Although Bancroft was organized before Alameda, this has no bearing on the issue. Bancroft has always used the facilities in the area it serves and a change in the supplier of the water and other facilities does not change its obligations. Bancroft's advice to the builders and contractors as to the type and location of fire hydrants does not impose liability on Bancroft for the repair of fire hydrants and the cost of water used in fire protection. Alameda acquired these obligations when organized. See Valley Water District v. Littleton, supra.
There is no merit in Alameda's contention that Bancroft's refusal to pay for water results in unequal charges to Alameda's consumers. Alameda controls the water rates charged to individual consumers in its water district and could adjust its fee schedule so as to charge consumers equally.
Alameda also argues that there was an implied contract with Bancroft to pay for the water and to service the fire hydrants. However, since the obligation to pay for water and services is governed by statute and the statute does not require such payment, the law will not imply a contract to pay for the same.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE BERMAN and JUDGE KELLY concur.