Galt County Water District v. Evans

8 Citing cases

  1. People, City of Downey v. Downey County Water

    202 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 19 times
    Involving challenge to existence of a county water district after its entire area had been annexed to a city. On the issue of continued service, the reviewing court held that "the transferee of a water company or a water system has the same duties and obligations as the transferor, and the inhabitants of the district have the right to receive water from the city to the same extent they formerly had; and the city must assume the duty to supply water without discrimination." ( id. at p. 797)

    ( Supra, p. 745.) In referring to county water districts (as well as municipal utility districts) the court in Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 51 P.2d 202], referred to them as "public corporations inferior in power and scope to a municipal corporation" (p. 119); and over a water district — its organization and change of boundaries — the Legislature has plenary control. ( Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. All Parties, 6 Cal.2d 197 [ 57 P.2d 506].)

  2. Paso Robles Etc. Hospital Dist. v. Negley

    29 Cal.2d 203 (Cal. 1946)   Cited 6 times

    The identity of a special district is not merged in that of another political entity simply because its boundaries are the same as that of the other political entity. ( Los Angeles City SchoolDistrict v. Longden, 148 Cal. 380, 381-382, 385 [ 83 P. 246]; In re Wetmore, 99 Cal. 146, 151 [33 P. 769]; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 [ 74 P. 44]; Galt County WaterDistrict v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 51 P.2d 202].) (9) The Local Hospital District Law is not invalid because it authorizes a difference in rates to be charged nonresidents.

  3. Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. All Parties and Persons

    6 Cal.2d 197 (Cal. 1936)   Cited 18 times
    In Sacramento Municipality Utility District v. All Parties and Persons, 6 Cal.2d 197, 57 P.2d 506, it was contended that the provisions of the proposition calling for the bond issue submitted "an alternative and uncertain purpose" for the expenditure of the proceeds of the bond issue.

    On proceedings in mandate to compel the performance by the secretary of his official duty in the premises, the court held that the Galt County Water District "still retained power to incur a bonded indebtedness". ( Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 51 P.2d 202].) We do not accept appellants' view that the case of Capuchino Land Co. v. Board of Trustees, 34 Cal.App. 239 [ 167 P. 178], presents facts so "almost identical with those of the present case" as to carry conviction as against the above-quoted provision of section 6a, as construed by the court in the Galt Water District case, supra.

  4. Trumbo v. Crestline Lake Arrowhead Water Agency

    250 Cal.App.2d 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    In the absence of constitutional restrictions, the Legislature has plenary power over the organization, boundaries, powers and liabilities of a special district. ( In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296 [28 P. 272, 675, 27 Am.St.Rep. 106, 14 L.R.A. 755]; Petition of East Fruitvale Sanitary Dist., 158 Cal. 453, 457 [ 111 P. 368]; Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116, 118 [ 51 P.2d 202].) Where vested rights are not impaired, the Legislature may enlarge, restrict, modify or abrogate the powers granted to such districts.

  5. Wilson v. City of San Bernardino

    186 Cal.App.2d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 17 times

    To the same effect is La Mesa Homes Co. v. La Mesa etc. Irrigation District, 173 Cal. 121 [ 159 P. 593], involving an irrigation district. (See also Stuckenbruck v. Board of Supervisors, 193 Cal. 506 [ 225 P. 857]; Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 51 P.2d 202]; Dickson v. City of Carlsbad, 119 Cal.App.2d 809 [ 260 P.2d 226]; Oakdale Irr. Dist. v. County of Calaveras, 133 Cal.App.2d 127 [ 283 P.2d 732].) [4] It would therefore clearly appear that when a general law of the state, adopted by the state Legislature, provides for a scheme of public improvement, the scope of which intrudes upon or transcends the boundary of one or several municipalities, together with unincorporated territory, such contemplated improvement ceases to be a municipal affair and comes within the proper domain and regulation of the general laws of the state.

  6. Oakdale Irr. Dist. v. County of Calaveras

    133 Cal.App.2d 127 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 9 times
    In Oakdale Irr. Dist. v. County ofCalaveras, 133 Cal.App.2d 127 [ 283 P.2d 732], decided on the same day as the Rock Creek Water District case, the same court held that lands included within an irrigation district after the tax lien date, were exempt from taxation.

    ( La Mesa Homes Co. v. La Mesa etc. Irr. Dist., 173 Cal. 121, 125 [ 159 P. 593]; see also Pixley v. Saunders, 168 Cal. 152 [ 141 P. 815].) In Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 51 P.2d 202], it was held that the annexation by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District of the Galt County Water District did not preclude the latter district from the exercise of the power to incur a bonded indebtedness granted by the County Water District Act. The Legislature has expressly provided in section 34075 of the Water Code that lands within a water district may be included within an irrigation district; and section 34077 of the same code provides that such inclusion shall not release the included land from any of the burdens, obligations or liability of the water district; and that such lands shall in all respects continue to be a part of the water district.

  7. Aurora v. Aurora District

    112 Colo. 406 (Colo. 1944)   Cited 22 times
    In City of Aurora v. Aurora Sanitation District, 112 Colo. 406, 411, 149 P.2d 662, 664 (1944), the supreme court stated, "a quasi-municipal corporation is not a true municipal corporation having powers of local government, but is merely a public agency endowed with such of the attributes of a municipality as may be necessary in the performance of its limited objective" (emphasis added).

    It seems very evident from the language of the court that a contrary result would have attained if the California statutes, like those of Colorado here in examination, unequivocally had conferred authority upon the sanitation district to operate within another municipality. That this deduction is warranted appears from the opinion in the later California case of Galt County Water District v. Evans, 10 Cal. App. 2d 116, 51 P.2d 202, wherein, because the legislature of that state subsequently so had provided expressly, the court held that even after its annexation to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the involved water district still might exercise the power to incur bonded indebtedness. Concerning the controlling force of legislative expression, and its effect on the Fruitvale case, supra, the court said: "We may fairly assume that the legislature, having in mind a situation similar to that discussed in In Re Sanitary Board of East Fruitvale Sanitary District, supra, deliberately proposed to correct the condition there pointed out and enacted the amendment referred to and has accordingly exercised its power and expressed its legislative intent."

  8. Water District v. County of Orange

    30 Cal.App.2d 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 18 times
    In Laguna Beach WaterDist. v. Orange Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 740 [ 87 P.2d 46], it is stated that "It must be conceded that it has always been the policy of the law in California since the adoption of the present Constitution, to exempt from taxation property of the state and state agencies generally classified as public corporations".

    In Morrison v. Smith Bros., Inc., 211 Cal. 36 [ 293 P. 53], it was said that a county water district was a public corporation that may be called a quasi-municipal corporation. In Galt County Water Dist. v. Evans, 10 Cal.App. (2d) 116 [ 51 P.2d 202], county water districts were defined as "public corporations inferior in power and scope to a municipal corporation". In SacramentoM.U. Dist. v. All Parties, etc., 6 Cal. (2d) 197 [ 57 P.2d 506], the Supreme Court said: