The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-10
SPRING VALLEY
WATER RATES
FIRMLY FIXED
Decision Given by
Judge seaWell.
PROCEEDINGS ARE DISMISSED
BOARD CANNOT BE FORCED TO
REsCIND ITS ACTION.
Efforts of wv. j. FifeId on Behalf of
the People of This City Are
Without Avail-Law of
the Case.
PROCEEDINGS ARE DISMISSED
BOARD CANNOT BE FORCED TO
RESCIND ITS ACTION.

Morgan, have met defeat in their efforts
to compel the Board of Supervisors to
make further investigation into the af-
fairs of the Spring Valley Water Works
and again fix the water rates. Judge Sea-
well yesterday handed down a decision
dismissing the action, and hence the rates
will remain as decreed by the board in
February last Though the decision ia
vors the Supervisors, it does not decree
that the rate was properly fixed; it simply
holds that the court has no power to
compel the board to reconsider its actions,
and even though the rate was eXtortion-
ate the people would be forced to bear
the burden until another year.
Shortly after the rate was fixed by the
Supervisors. Fifield, through his attorney,
filed a petition for writ of mandate to
compel the board to legally fix the rate,
it being alleged in the petition that the
municipal legislative body had simply
pretended" to fix the rate, such pre-
tense not being sanctioned by law. The
petition said:
On January g. 1899 the board met and passed
a resolution calling the Spring Valley Water
Works to furnish a statement required by
law Then the board adjourned February S
the board met received the resolution and then
adjourned February 10 the board met and ad-
journed February Is the board met and heard
the statements of Herman Schussler, chief en-
gineer of the corporation, and then adjourned
February % the board met and heard the tes-
timonv of q. f. Allardt and then adjourned,
and on February p the hoard met and adopted
on February 90 the petition continued, dur
ing the meeting of the board Benjamin Nor
gan appeared and informed the board as to
hered to in fixing the rate. The board was
also requested to call George H. Mendeil and
Charles w. Howard. but neglected TO do so,
il IS stated. On these few dates mentioned,
and these only, it is further contended. the
board investigated the corporation and then
fixed the water rate without due knowledge Of
the financial condition and outlay which
the corporation was entitled to interest
rrfh on lz n cor
poration's statement that the actual value Of
It's plant TO be used in supplying the residents
s25, 100000 was false. This statement contains
vast properties, including the Calaveras reser-
cadero and San Gregorio creeks and Crystal
Springs dam, which will not be used in sup
plying the residents Of this city, Mr.. Fiheld
contends The actual plant to be used. he
said. was not worth more than SIC, 900 900, on
which profit of S5o0,0o0 year would be ample
For these reasons he asked that the board be
compelled to further investigate the matter
and act accordingly.
The case was heard by Judge SeaweIl,
some testimony was taken and the case
submitted for decision upon a technicality
arising during the hearing. Yesterday the
decision was handed down and the case
dismissed.
The decision is as follows:
This is an application for a writ of mandate
requiring the defendant board to make a full
investigation as to the value of the plant that
will be in actual use by the Spring Valley Water
and county with water for domestic purposes
and fixing a return to said company for
such use fair and reasonable rate to be paid
by the consumers
1t appears by plaintiff's affidavit that on
February o. 1899. the Board of Supervisors
adopted order fixing water rates for the
fiscal year beginning July I, 1890, but il is
claimed by plaintiff that said rates are unrea-
sonable and unjust in this that they will yield
to the water company a much larger percentage
of profit upon the value of said plant than it
Is lawfully entitled to receive.
nj nrnraa ht- soft oF6 0x-4r +ha& A.Fz
fixing said rates the board heard the statements
of the chief engineer OF the water company and
the testimony of G. F Allardt. and that when
Ben Morgan Esq, on behalf of the rate payers
called the attention of the board to the rule
governing the fixing of water lates and asked
that II examine as witnesses George II. Mendell
and Charles Webb Howard as to the value Hof
the plant OF the water company, said board re-
fused to hear said witnesses.
ii is also alleged that in the short time oc-
cupied by the board in the matter it was ply
sically impossible for it to make proper in
vestlgaton.
The Board of Supervisors when fixing water
rates acts iudicially. and where it has ex-
cannot be compelled by mandamus to change
its judgment to take further action thereon
be so specific, certain and definite that the de-
PENDANT viii not be required to look beyond the
writ to ascertain his duty.
How can this court define in its mandate what
is full investigation and what will be fair
and reasonable rate?
This proceeding is based upon the theory that
the order complained of is absolutely void. |
am satisfied that however inadequate may have
been the investigation made by the defendant
and however unsatisfactory may have been
the evidence produced before 1t the order was
not void
The board made some investigation and heard
some evidence. II heard the statements of the
chief engineer of the water company and the
testimony of C. F. Allardt. What those state
ments and that testimony showed does not
appear If It did the result would not be diff
ferent. The court has power to give drec-
tons to the board to the evidence which ii
should a the which
should draw therefrom.
In case where the board neglects to take
action in the matter of fixing water rates this
court has power to compel it to do So but Il
cannot dictate TO the board how it should act
1t appearing therefore that the defendant
has already adopted order fixing water rates
for the next fiscal year. the demurrer of defend
ant TO plaintiff affidavit will be sustained and
the proceedings dismissed.