Court Opinion

ID: 9767890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:32:29.559998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.252643
License: Public Domain

CONLEY Byrd, Justice, dissenting. The results in this case remind me of the man that couldn’t see the forest for the trees. It’s true that the appellee occasionally uses six-inch lines for extension purposes, but it is somewhat syllogistic to say that all six-inch water lines constitute an extension to the water service area. In my view the lines run to the condominiums here are nothing more nor less than service lines to furnish water in sufficient quantity to meet the anticipated demands of the occupants. Since the water service was already available to the area in question, I’m unable to comprehend how the six-inch lines to the condominiums amounted to a supplement, enlargement or extension of the ten-inch water service. After all it was the intensity of the use of the area that created the demand for the six-inch line and not the area to be served. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.