The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1904-10-20
HAS POWER TO
BUILD SEWER

That Hood River will have sew er
system seems now assured, the numer-
GUS remonstrances to the contrary
notwithstanding. The members ef the
sewer committee Of the city council
have secured legal advice from their
attorney, w. II. Wilson Of The Dalles,
who assures the committee that hey
have the absolute power to Ia id a
sewer system, when the heath oi the
city demands, whether the property
owners benefited favor the systelA or
not.
The following letter from Attorney
Wilson explains the situation;
In talking with Mr.. Early, of your
committee, yesterday he asked me
whether or not the Common Council of
the City Of Hood River has the power to
construct a sewerin case a remonstrance
against its construction should be
signed bv all the owners OF properly
that will be directly benefited by the
sewer. The question asked by Mr..
Early, as understand it, is, if all the
owners OF property which would be
directl, benefited by sewer or sewer
system should oppose its construction,
would the council still have the power
to construct the sewer over the Opposi-
ton o. all the owners OF the properly,
and srss the costs uf the sewer VI on
tie property directly benefited thcrel y
! have looked tbs matter up and wills
say that the Council has full and com
plete authority in the matter, and even
il the construction OF the sewer should
be opposed by all property owners, the
Council by twO-thirds vote might still
proceed to construct I sewer and
assess its costs upon the property direct
ly benefited.
In the case Of Strowbridge VS.. the
City OF Portland, Or, 81, the Supreme
Court Of the State OF Or gon said:
"The elaborate manner pointed out
in the charter for acquiring the author
ity to construct the street improvements
does not apply to the construction Of
sewers. The latter may he laid when,
in the judgment Of the city council, the
same shall be necessary. They may be
made without previous notice, the Coun
ell alone being the Judge of their neces-
sity, Sewers are required as a part OF
the sanitary regulations of the city to
prevent the development Of local dis
orders, and generally to preserve the
public health. 1t may, and often does
happen in populous towns, that active
measures have to be taken by city
authorities in sanitary regulations, and
it would not be wise to leave 80 impor-
tant a power, often requiring the most
prompt exercise, to the tardy mode pro-
yided for inaugurating street improve
ments."
This was afterward cited in the case
of Poulsen VS.. the City of Portland, 16
Ore 456.
This decision was afterward modified
in the case of Wilson vs.. the City of
Salem, "a Ore. 504, SO far as that case
holds that sewers may be constructed
and the costs taxed upon the property
directly benefited without notice. The
last named case holding that notice
must be given to the owners of the
property, and they must be given an
opportunity to be heard concerning the
amount and portion of the cost which
should be assessed upon their property
So far as the case relates to the power
of the Council to construct sewers with
out obtaining the consent Of the prop
erty owners, the case of Strowbridge vs.
Portland is still law. Section 55 of the
charter of Hood River refers to remon-
strances. That Section refers to street
improvements, but by Section 95 OF the
charter it is also made to apply to sew
ers. But you will observe that after a
remOnstrance is fled il is still within
the power of the Council by two
thirds vote to proceed the same as il no
remonstrance had been filed.
The power of the Council is absolute,
and 1t has the right to exercise that
power and construct sewers when it
deems them necessary, whether the
work is opposed by all the property
owners or not.