Court Opinion

ID: 9721729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:07:01.805394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.291747
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the three pertinent provisions of the Water District Act—Water Code sections 71614 (authorizing a district to fix rates), 71616 (providing criteria for rate fixing), and 71592 (authorizing the district to enter into contracts)—should be interpreted in such a way as to harmonize them in accordance with what appears to be the overall intent of the Legislature. It appears to me, however, that the majority’s interpretation—which leaves districts free to enter into long-term contracts establishing rates without regard to the criteria set forth in section 71616—produces a dissonant result. The message conveyed by the majority’s opinion is that the governing board of a water district, approached by a potential user interested in conducting business within the district’s jurisdiction, is free to enter into a contract with the user establishing rates for whatever number of years it chooses (in this case, 43 years), and without regard to the relationship between the rates so established and the district’s operating expenses, or amounts required for repairs and depreciation, surplus for expansion, payments on bonded debts, and repayment of advances. The Legislature must have intended the criteria contained in section 71616 to operate as a limitation upon the district’s rate-fixing discretion. If that limitation can be avoided through the device of a contract, the legislative intent is defeated.
In my view, a more harmonious accommodation among the three sections can be achieved by acknowledging the district’s authority to establish rates through contract, as provided in section 71592, so long as the terms of the contract are in accord, “so far as practicable,” with the criteria provided in section 71616. At least, the district’s governing body should be held to a standard of substantial compliance with those guidelines when it chooses to commit the district’s resources over a period of time.
. I therefore concur in the court’s decision to reverse, but I would include directions on remand that the trial court entertain evidence and make findings as to whether or not the contract in question is in compliance, so far as practicable, with the criteria set forth in section 71616.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 2, 1982. Grodin, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. The petition of respondent Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 29, 1982.