Freeman v. Contra Costa County Water District

Citations: 18 Cal. App. 3d 404; 95 Cal. Rptr. 852; 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1394Docket: Civ. 28717

Court: California Court of Appeal; June 24, 1971; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants, homeowners in Concord, are contesting the Contra Costa County Water District's requirement to install a "double check valve assembly" to prevent contamination of the public water supply from their private wells. The district has threatened to terminate water service until the installation, which the appellants must pay for, is completed. The court ruled in favor of the district, affirming that contamination risks arise when there is any physical connection between public and auxiliary water supplies. The district's charges for installation and maintenance are based on actual costs, and the appellants receive no specific benefit beyond that available to the public. 

The statutory framework supporting the district's requirement includes Health and Safety Code sections 203 and 208, which empower the State Department of Public Health to regulate the prevention of pollution in public water supplies. Administrative regulations mandate protective devices on premises with auxiliary water supplies, regardless of direct connections. The necessity for a double check valve assembly is specifically outlined for situations where auxiliary supplies are not directly connected to the public water system, and the responsibility for installation falls on the water user.

Respondent established regulations allowing for water service discontinuation if consumers do not install a required protective device. Appellants argue this requirement constitutes a taking of property, necessitating compensation, claiming it infringes on their right to use their well water. The distinction between police power and eminent domain is clarified: the constitutional right to compensation applies only to eminent domain, while damage from legitimate police power actions is considered damnum absque injuria. A regulation is valid if it is deemed necessary for public order, safety, health, morals, or welfare, with the burden of proof on appellants to demonstrate any unreasonableness. Prevention of water pollution is recognized as a legitimate governmental objective, allowing the exercise of police power. Appellants contend that requiring a protective device is unreasonable since their well is not connected to the domestic supply, deeming contamination risks as speculative. However, the state can proactively protect public water supplies without having to wait for actual harm. The requirement for a $35 device is not seen as unreasonable. Additionally, appellants argue they should not bear the cost for a device that benefits the public. This argument is likened to a precedent where the Supreme Court upheld cost-sharing for public safety improvements, asserting that entities that create safety issues cannot avoid their share of costs merely because they do not receive direct benefits from improvements.

Appellants, by maintaining water wells, have created a potential hazard that necessitates protective measures, and they have no valid grounds to object to the associated costs. They are not compelled to use the respondent's water service and may rely solely on their wells. However, their use of both the public supply and their well must not jeopardize the public water system. The appellants challenge the term "auxiliary water supply" in the regulation as unconstitutionally vague, but the California Administrative Code's definition is clear and enforceable. 

The appellants argue that the respondent lacks statutory authority to charge for protective device installation and maintenance under the County Water District Law, which governs public funding for improvements. However, this law allows water districts to set rules regarding water use, and the protective device is deemed a condition for the appellants' use of the public supply, which is permissible under section 31024. Furthermore, the County Water District Law does not negate other water-related laws. Public Health regulations mandate that water users bear the responsibility for such protective measures, thus justifying the respondent's requirement for appellants to fund installation and inspection.

The appellants claim due process violations regarding the demand for device installation or service discontinuation, asserting a right to notice and a hearing. However, the respondent's actions were in accordance with existing state regulations, which do not require individual notice and hearings for enforcement of valid statutes. The judgment is affirmed, with Devine, P.J., and Rattigan, J., concurring.