TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. ALLEN
Filed 6/26/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLEN ZANKER et al. Defendants; TOWN OF LA GRANGE, Intervener and Appellant; MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Intervener and Respondent. |
F047094
(Super. Ct. No. 272850)
O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Hurl W. Johnson, Judge
Nomellini, Grilli & McDaniel and Daniel A. McDaniel for Intervener and Appellant.
Cassel Malm Fagundes, Joseph H. Fagundes and Floyd W. Cranmore for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joy A. Warren, Joel S. Moskowitz; Downey Brand, Jennifer L. Harder, and Joseph S. Schofield for Intervener and Respondent.
--o0o--
Story continue from Part I …………………….
Collection efforts on delinquent accounts seem to have been fairly spotty -- or even nonexistent -- and the districts did not discontinue service for nonpayment. But, the districts never delivered water for free. The districts also consistently asserted that delivery of the water (not treatment of it) was their only responsibility under the 1921 contract. Nevertheless, from a very early date the districts elected to fulfill their contractual duty to deliver water by operating a domestic water supply system, which was subject to inspection and regulation by state and local authorities, most recently under the terms of the California Safe Drinking Water Act, Health and Safety Code section 116275 et seq. As a result, as the trial court concluded, regulations adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 116375 require the districts to furnish water that meets certain standards of purity. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 64650 et seq.)
Neither this obligation nor the original 1921 undertaking to provide a domestic water supply, however, requires the districts to provide such water free of charge. The town has cited no language in any conveyance, contract, or other document that would support a finding that the districts were required to provide free water. By contrast, the evidence shows that, from the very earliest days, the owners of the La Grange Ditch charged those residents of the town who took water from the canal.
When there is no requirement in the districts' contract setting a price at which they are required to deliver water, the boards of the districts are empowered by statute to â€
