The land contained no water works, water supply system, facilities, nor any tangible real or personal property belonging to the District. District has no outstanding general obligation or special obligation bonds that affected the land. The land was undeveloped and had no voters living within it. The court ordered publication of the notice of the petition for three consecutive weeks in the Jefferson County Watchman. After the filing of the petition, six voters and landowners, Board members of the District, filed objections to detachment of landowners' land from District's territory.
District raises two points on appeal.
Appellate courts will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. In its first point, District argues the trial court erred in ordering the detachment of landowners' land from it and in finding the detachment will not adversely affect the remainder of the District. District argues there was no substantial evidence to support the order and the judgment was against the weight of the evidence, in that the only evidence presented on the issue of adverse effect showed the District will suffer loss of future water revenue and a loss of land. The detachment would avoid duplication of services by consolidating the water service into the City, which provides police and fire protection for the tract in question. The utilization of district water service, within the tract would cause difficulty concerning the measurement of costs for sewer service provided by the City in light of the lack of current metering agreement between the District and City.