CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WAT. DIST. v. Fossette

235 Cal. App. 2d 689, 45 Cal. Rptr. 651
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 15, 1965
Docket29447
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 235 Cal. App. 2d 689 (CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WAT. DIST. v. Fossette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WAT. DIST. v. Fossette, 235 Cal. App. 2d 689, 45 Cal. Rptr. 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

235 Cal.App.2d 689 (1965)
45 Cal. Rptr. 651

CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Petitioner,
v.
CARL FOSSETTE, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent; AZUSA AGRICULTURAL WATER COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Docket No. 29447.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

July 15, 1965.

*691 Burris & Lagerlof, Stanley C. Lagerlof, H. Jess Senecal and Jack T. Swafford for Petitioner.

Surr & Hellyer, Clayson, Stark, Rothrock & Mann and John B. Surr, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Tuttle & Taylor, William A. Norris and Alan Beban for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Parties in Interest.

FRAMPTON, J. pro tem.[*]

The petition herein was filed on May 19, 1965, in the Supreme Court and was thereafter transferred here for decision.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent, as its secretary, to certify to the passage and adoption of its resolution Number 2-65-185, and to transmit a duly certified copy thereof to the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District.

Petitioner is a municipal water district organized under the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, as amended. (Stats. 1963, ch. 156, div. 20; Wat. Code, § 71000 et seq.) Petitioner's boundaries lie within the County of Los Angeles and its principal office is located therein. Respondent, at all times since February 10, 1965, has been and now is the duly appointed, qualified and acting secretary of petitioner. *692 [1] It is respondent's obligation as secretary to perform in addition to the duties imposed on him by law, such duties as may be imposed on him by the board of directors of petitioner. (Wat. Code, § 71360.) [2] The duties imposed on respondent by law and by petitioner's board of directors include those relating to the certification of the passage and adoption of ordinances, resolutions, motions and orders of the board of directors of petitioner.

Petitioner, Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, and the City of Compton, a municipal corporation, are plaintiffs in an action commenced May 12, 1959, Number 722647, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, against nine cities, two county water districts and 17 public utilities and private water companies, each of which defendants is located within and produces water from an area upstream on the San Gabriel River from the area in which plaintiffs are located. The defendants named and served in said action, together with California Domestic Water Company and the City of Whittier, constitute the major producers of water in the area in which they are located. Issue was joined on the filing of the answers to the amended complaint. By the amended complaint, petitioner and the other plaintiffs, (a) sought to compel each of the defendants to set forth the nature and extent of its claims in and to the water referred to therein as being the water of the "San Gabriel River System," (b) requested that the court fix and determine the rights, if any, of each defendant in and to said water, and (c) requested that each defendant therein be perpetually restrained and enjoined from taking such water in excess of the amount so fixed and determined by the court. After the commencement of the action there were certain dismissals had and new parties added where there had been mergers or transfers of water rights. California Domestic Water Company, a corporation, and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, a municipal water district (hereinafter referred to as "Upper District"), intervened as parties defendant.

On February 10, 1965, issues having been joined, the petitioner and the two other plaintiffs and the defendants entered into, executed and filed, in the action, a stipulation for judgment which became fully effective on said date. The stipulation provided, inter alia, that upon the occurrence of specified conditions precedent, the form of judgment attached *693 thereto should be rendered. The judgment provided for the appointment of a "Watermaster" consisting of three persons, one as a representative of "Lower Area Parties" (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(c) of the judgment), another acting as the representative of "Upper Area Parties" (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(d) of the judgment), and a third person jointly nominated by petitioner and Upper District. The Watermaster, when duly constituted and appointed pursuant to paragraph 6 of the judgment, will administer and enforce the provisions of the judgment and the instructions and subsequent orders of the court. In order to perform those duties, the Watermaster, by paragraphs 7 through 13 of the judgment, is given certain powers and duties, including the collection of information and data concerning the quantities and quality of various categories of water passing from "Upper Area" (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(e) of the judgment) to "Lower Area" (as that term is defined in paragraph 3(f) of the judgment). Paragraph 4 of the stipulation for judgment provides as follows:

"Plaintiffs and defendants agree that during the period prior to entry of the attached form of Judgment, they will cooperate in endeavoring to collect such information as the Watermaster would obtain if the attached form of Judgment had been entered and the Watermaster had been appointed by the Court pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Judgment, which information is herein referred to as `said information.' To that end, the parties hereto hereby agree that promptly following the complete execution of this stipulation by all parties, Upper District and Central Municipal shall each notify the other in writing as to the identity of the person who it expects will be nominated as the representative of Upper Area Parties or Lower Area Parties, as the case may be, under paragraph 6 of the Judgment. Upon receiving such notice, Upper District and Central Municipal shall each instruct its designated nominee that until the attached form of Judgment is entered and the Watermaster has been appointed pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Judgment he shall in cooperation with the other designated nominee do all things reasonably necessary to obtain such of said information as is available from the parties hereto or any public agency."

On February 17, 1965, petitioner received a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the board of directors of Upper *694 District, determining that Thomas M. Stetson was the person expected to be nominated as the representative of the Upper Area parties under paragraph 6 of the judgment. Following the execution of the stipulation for judgment by all parties, petitioner's board of directors did determine, on February 18, 1965, the identity of the person (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "said designee") whom petitioner expected would be nominated as the representative of said Lower Area parties under paragraph 6 of the judgment. Identification of Max Bookman as said designee was fixed by resolution Number 2-65-185 duly adopted by petitioner's board of directors on the above mentioned date. By the terms of said resolution, respondent was ordered to give the necessary written notice to Upper District, identifying said designee by certifying to the adoption of said resolution and by transmitting a duly certified copy thereof to Upper District. On March 17, 1965, respondent did refuse to either certify or to transmit as ordered a certified, or any, copy of said resolution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hillside Memorial Park & Mortuary v. Golden State Water Co.
205 Cal. App. 4th 534 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)
Central & West Basin Water Replenishment District v. Southern California Water Co.
135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)
Imen v. Glassford
201 Cal. App. 3d 898 (California Court of Appeal, 1988)
Fisher v. Superior Court
103 Cal. App. 3d 434 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Stambaugh v. Superior Court
62 Cal. App. 3d 231 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Douglas
15 Cal. App. 3d 814 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 Cal. App. 2d 689, 45 Cal. Rptr. 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-basin-municipal-wat-dist-v-fossette-calctapp-1965.