The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-07-07
OAKLAND wins IN
WATER LITIGATION
Supreme Court Reverses Deci=
sion Regarding Fixing of
Contra Costa Rates
Value of Plant Held to Be Not
Over S3,500,000 Instead
of S7,0OO,OOO

The city of Oakland scored a victory
over the Contra Costa water company
in the supreme court yesterday, when
that tribunal held that the city coun-
eli acted within its rights in adopting
2 n ordinance March 26. 1900. fixing the
water rates for the year9beginning July
]. 1900. The judgment and order of
rhe lower court denying the city a
new trial was reversed in an opinion
written by Associate Justice AngelIotti
and concurred in by Associate Justices
shaw. Sloss and Lorigan.
- The trial was begun April 5, 1909.
10 nuuify the ordinance on the ground
that its terms were conhscatory. Judg-
nent was given for plaintiff May IS,
1901. A new trial was denied April
s. 1895. and an appeal was taken. The
trial court found the value Of the plant
70 be s7,000.0O0. With the net revenue
about $4,000 the rate on the invest
ment would be less than per cent.
without allowing for depreciation. The
court found per cent TO be a reason
the company had not been properly
considered when the ordinance was
passed.
According 10 the decision of the su-
ureme court the state constitution holds
that the use of all water appropriated
for sale. rental or distribution is sub
iect 70 regulation and control and the
rates TO be collected for the use of
water supplied to any city or town
II.
ing board Of the city or town.
COURT CAN NOT REVISE RATE
The opinion holds that the duties Of
these boards in the exercise of their
legislative function are judicial in their
nature on this point the opinion reads
as follows:
The courts have no power TO revise
The action OF the rate fixing body in
this regard No authority is given
by the law for any such review by
judicial tribunal If an ordinance fix
ing rates is enacted in the manner pro-
vided by law. it can be set aside by the
courts only where IL is invalid on some
constitutional ground. Under our con-
stitutional guarantees. federal and
state. no one can be deprived of his
property without just compensation,
and II the effect of an ordinance fix
ing water rates is 10 deprive one en-
"a eeS in the exercise Of such public
use of a fair return upon his property
used in such service. such act deprives
the party Of the lawful use Of his
nropertv. and thus in substance and
effect. Of the property itself, in viola
ffou of the constitutional provisions
Where such is the effect, the courts,
enforcing the mandate Of the consu-
rutional provisions. viii hold the ordin-
ance to be void and prevent its en-
forcement"
DISCUSSION OF VALUE
While the company produced ex-
merits TO fix the value at 100000. the
l.i+x coutended that the value did not
evceed $4,000. coo. The opinion dis
ousses this feature of the action as
follows;
There was evidence which probably
would have supported finding Of value
very slightly in excess of the amount
claimed by the defendants in their an
svrer. Sc. 600 600. and which certainly
would have supported a finding Of
value not exceeding $3.50O.000. Taking
the value TO be So. 500 900 only, the or
dfuance would afford net revenue over
cperating expenses and taxes of 5-6S2
Ter cent. which is not, in our Judgment,
So low rate that a court upon the
record before US. would be warranted
in holding that It was beyond the pow
or Of the council 10 fix, even If we hold
that there must be deducted therefrom
what would be q fair allowance for
The ordinary annual depreciation IN the
value Of the perishable portion Of the
plant"
n. D-,- Maxr CLAIM, Daha{a