City Of Vernon v. City Of Los Angeles

290 P.2d 841 (1955)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D constructed an outfall sewer system with a capacity which exceeded its then expected needs. Beginning in 1909 with P, cities made contracts with D by which D agreed to dispose of their sewage. In 1909 D disposed of P's sewage by discharging it raw into Santa Monica Bay about 900 feet offshore. Pursuant to requirements in 1922, D commenced construction of new facilities, including a screening plant and a submarine tube extending about a mile offshore. In 1940, D was ordered to construct adequate sewage disposal works. D did not comply, and the state revoked its permit. It also revoked permits of P. Thus, all rights of the contracting parties to dispose of sewage through the existing facilities were terminated. In 1943 the state brought the abatement action. Judgment for the state was entered on February 1, 1946. D attempted to work out means, alone or in cooperation with the other cities, whereby the sewage could be adequately disposed of by methods conforming with health and safety laws. P did not make similar efforts; it sat by, resting on its claim that all its responsibility for disposition of its sewage, including its responsibility to the People of the State of California, had been assumed by D. P simple played dumb and claimed it could not understand the mandates. P elected to dispose of its sewage through the new facilities to be built by D but did not make arrangements to finance its share of the cost of such facilities until it was compelled to do so by contempt proceedings. P sought declaratory relief, and an injunction under contracts entered into between it D in 1909, 1925, 1931, and 1938. P claims it is entitled to discharge a certain amount of its sewage through the sewer system of D without payment. D claimed that the contracts are without effect; and in accordance with the decision for the state in People v. City of Los Angeles (1948) that P has no right to use the sewage system of D except on payment of its share of the cost of the facilities used. The court decreed that P is not entitled to the relief sought; that the contracts are terminated and 'have been invalid and unenforceable since a time not later than the entry of judgment in the State Abatement Action'; and that for P to use the facilities it must make payment of its share of their cost. The trial court determined that pursuant to the abatement injunction the lawful existence of the screening plant and the tube built pursuant to the 1923 permit has expired; that D is required to build a new plant and tube at a cost of approximately $41,000,000; that the cost of operating and maintaining the new plant and tube will be approximately $500,000 per annum; that F cannot continue performance under its contracts with P 'except at an excessive and unreasonable cost; that it is not practicable for D to continue the performance under the terms of the contracts . . . with the use of the new . . . plant and . . . tube.' P appealed.