Title: Central Basin Municipal Water District, a municipal water district, Petitioner, v. Carl Fossette, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent, Azusa Agricultural Water Co., a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004423/00001
 Material Information
Title: Central Basin Municipal Water District, a municipal water district, Petitioner, v. Carl Fossette, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent, Azusa Agricultural Water Co., a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: California Reporter
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Central Basin Municipal Water District, a municipal water district, Petitioner, v. Carl Fossette, as Secretary of Central Basin Municipal Water District, Respondent, Azusa Agricultural Water Co., a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest (JDV BOX 86)
General Note: Box 22, Folder 2 ( Groundwater - Old Florida and California Cases - 1900's ), Item 9
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004423
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT v. FOSSETTE
Cite ns 45 Cal.IRpr. 05i


cENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, a municipal water
district, Petitioner,
V.
Carl FOSSETTE, as Secretary of Central
Basin Municipal Water Dis-
trict, Respondent,

AZUSA AGRICULTURAL WATER COMPA-
NY, a corporation, et al., Real
Parties In Interest.
Civ. 29447.

1isirict Court of Appeal, Second District,
Division 1, California.
July 15, 1965.


Mandamus case. The District Court of
\Appeal, Frampton, J. pro tern., held that
stipulation and proposed judgment in water
rights case was valid.
Peremptory writ issued.

i. Mandamus 0=163
On demurrer, the district court of ap-
ipal assumed the truth of all material al-
h nations of fact set forth in mandamus
lptition.
2. Waters and Water Courses O1831/2
Stipulation for judgment constituted a
compromise and settlement of a controversy
affecting the ownership and use of water
and water rights as contemplated by the sec-
tion of the Water Code providing that a mu-
nicipal water district may compromise any
action or proceeding involving or affecting
the ownership or use of water or water
rights within the district. West's Ann.
Water Code, 71751.
3. Stipulations -14(12)
Stipulation for judgment did not by its
terms or by implication eliminate or impair
water rights, even though it did not pass
upon them so long as they were being taken
care of by the physical solution adopted.
West's Ann.Water Code, 71751.
4. Waters and Water Courses 0=152( 11)
It is proper to resolve complex prob-
inms relating to conflicting claims to right
to use water by adoption of physical solu-
tion of such problems.


5. Waters and Water Courses =152(11)
Where judgment provides for physical
solution of rights of litigants to use water
and includes therein appropriate flexibility
to meet pertinent changes and developments,
it is proper that a trial court should retain
jurisdiction over such decree.
6. Waters and Water Courses 1831/2
Whatever limitations there may be on
district's power to supply other than certain
enumerated areas with water, it is clear that
if, in order to operate its project at all,
water must be furnished to a prior claimant,
the district possesses implied power so to
furnish the water. West's Ann.Water
Code, 71611, 71612.
7. States =119
Funds directed toward a public pur-
pose are not within the constitutional pro-
hibition against gift of public funds merely
because of incidental benefits to individuals.
West's Ann.Const. art. 4, 31.
8. Constitutional Law 070(3)
The Legislature is vested with a large
discretion in determining what is for the
public good and what are public purposes
for which public moneys can be rightfully
expended and that discretion cannot be con-
trolled by the courts, except when its action
is clearly evasive. West's Ann.Const. art.
4, 31.
9. States ei119
Stipulation for judgment in water
rights case was not in violation of constitu-
tional prohibition against gift of public
funds. West's Ann.Const. art. 4, 31.
10. Stipulations =11
Stipulation for judgment in water
rights case was not invalid as unreasonable
and arbitrary exercise of governmental
power.
II. Municipal Corporations 9=225(I)
The compromise and settlement of
water rights case, by means of a practical
solution as posed by stipulation, proposed
judgment and contract of reimbursement
was not such a disposal of water or water
rights owned or controlled by city of Long
Beach as would require consent of voters
of city in order to give it vitality.


~I




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs