OCR Text |
Show 44 ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF WATER DEVELOPMENT the state, and to that end there was commenced in the Supreme Court a proceeding by which was raised every question which it was thought might be raised touching its constitutionality. The questions thus presented were ably briefed and argued- as against the act, by Athol Rawlins of Salt Lake City, and in favor of its validity, by A. V. Watkins of Provo. On July 16, 1935, the Supreme Court rendered its decision upholding the Act as against every contention urged against it. It had been most strongly urged that in spite of the express declaration therein that when organized a metropolitan water district would be " a separate and independent political corporate entity" it would in fact be either a municipal corporation or a subdivision or " dummy" of a municipal corporation, and this, it was said, was especially so in those cases where the District embraced the area of only one city; and hence that the act was invalid because it permitted the doing of acts which neither a municipality or a subdivision of a county or a municipal corporation could legally do. In regard to this the Supreme Court held that it would be neither a municipal corporation nor a subdivision of one or of a county; that the coincidence of physical boundaries was of no significance to the matter of identity, any more than in case of a school district; that a metropolitan water district when organized under the act, whether composed of the area of only one city or of serveral, was, as the act itself specifically provided, " a separate and independent political entity, separate and distinct from the city or cities included within its jurisdiction." " It is connected with the cities and towns which are included within its territorial limits over which it operates but it is entirely distinct from any of those entities. While its activities embrace the same portion of the earth's surface as do those of the cities and towns which are included within its confines, that does not make it a mere combination or addition of a city and town entities." ANALYSIS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT ACT Purposes The act provides that metropolitan water districts may be organized for the purpose of acquiring, appropriating, developing, storing, selling, leasing and distributing water for, and devoting water to, municipal and domestic purposes, irrigation, power, milling, manufacturing, mining, metallurgical and any and all other beneficial uses, and such districts may be formed of the territory included, which need not be contiguous. Toward the accomplishments of those general purposes the District is vested with power: General Powers To take by grant, purchase, bequest, devise or lease, and to hold, enjoy, lease, sell, encumber, alien or otherwise dispose of, water, water works, water rights and sources of water supply, and any and all real and personal property of any kind within or without the district and within and without the state necessary or convenient to the full exercise of its powers; also to acquire, construct or |