New York Law Review

Tag: Suffolk County Water Authority

  • Suffolk County Water Authority v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 58 N.Y.2d 647 (1982): Contractual Obligation to Provide Specific Water Service Terms

    58 N.Y.2d 647 (1982)

    Public Authorities Law § 1085, specifically applying to the Suffolk County Water Authority, is permissive and does not mandate the authority to enter into a contract specifying the terms on which its service is to be provided.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the Suffolk County Water Authority is obligated to enter into a contract specifying the terms of its water service provision to a fire district. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Public Authorities Law § 1085 is permissive, not mandatory, regarding such contracts. The statute authorizes the Water Authority to contract with municipalities or fire districts but does not compel it. The Court emphasized the statute’s language and the absence of legal precedent supporting a mandatory interpretation.

    Facts

    The Board of Fire Commissioners sought to compel the Suffolk County Water Authority to enter into a contract specifying the terms under which the Authority would provide water service. The Water Authority declined to enter into such a contract. The Board argued that Public Authorities Law § 1085 required the Water Authority to contract with the fire district.

    Procedural History

    The lower court ruled in favor of the Suffolk County Water Authority. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision (89 AD2d 849). The Board of Fire Commissioners appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Public Authorities Law § 1085 mandates that the Suffolk County Water Authority enter into a contract specifying the terms on which its service is to be provided to a fire district.

    Holding

    No, because the clear import of section 1085 of the Public Authorities Law is that the making of such a contract is permissive.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, relying on the plain language of Public Authorities Law § 1085. The Court emphasized that the statute “authorize[s]” the authority to contract with a municipality or fire district. The Court found the permissive nature of the statute reinforced by the provision that the governing body “may authorize the execution [of a contract] by the adoption of a resolution to such effect” (emphasis supplied by the Court). Furthermore, the Court highlighted that even if a contract is entered, it remains subject to “any resolution of the authority authorizing obligations relating to the imposition of rates, fees or charges and the revision or adjustment thereof”. The appellant provided no legal authority to support its contention that the respondent should have been compelled to enter into a contract. The Court found no basis to compel the Water Authority to enter into a specific contract.

  • Swan Lake Water Corp. v. Suffolk County Water Authority, 20 N.Y.2d 81 (1967): Preventing Unauthorized Expansion by a Water Authority

    20 N.Y.2d 81 (1967)

    A water authority cannot extend its service mains into an area where it would compete with an existing waterworks system without obtaining specific approval from the Water Resources Commission, even if the authority has a general authorization to operate within the broader geographic area.

    Summary

    This case concerns a dispute between Swan Lake Water Corp. and the Suffolk County Water Authority over who should provide water service to a hospital. Swan Lake had a water main near the hospital but was authorized to serve a different area. Suffolk County Water Authority had a more general authorization to serve the county, but was prohibited from competing with existing systems. The court held that the Water Authority needed specific approval from the Water Resources Commission before extending its mains to serve the hospital, as it would constitute unauthorized competition with Swan Lake.

    Facts

    Swan Lake Water Corp. served a residential area (Pine Crest) adjacent to a hospital. Their authorized service area ended on the opposite side of the street from the hospital. Suffolk County Water Authority had a water main approximately 2,190 feet away from the hospital. The Water Authority and the hospital entered into a contract for water service without specific approval from the Water Resources Commission. Swan Lake argued this violated a prior order preventing the Water Authority from competing with existing water systems.

    Procedural History

    Swan Lake sued to prevent Suffolk County Water Authority from providing water service to the hospital. The Special Term ruled in favor of the Water Authority. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Water Authority needed approval from the Water Resources Commission. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Suffolk County Water Authority could extend its water mains to serve a hospital located near Swan Lake Water Corp.’s service area, without specific approval from the Water Resources Commission, given the Water Authority’s general authorization to serve the county but also a prohibition against competing with existing water systems.

    Holding

    Yes, because the extension of the Water Authority’s mains to serve the hospital constituted an unauthorized act of competition with Swan Lake, requiring specific approval from the Water Resources Commission under the Conservation Law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the Water Resources Commission has broad authority to regulate water resources and prevent unauthorized competition. The court emphasized that the Water Authority’s general authorization to serve the county did not override the specific prohibition against competing with existing water systems. The court quoted Matter of Suffolk County Water Auth. v. Water Power & Control Comm., 12 A D 2d 198, 202, noting that the allocation of authority to serve a given territory involves “an advised and specialized administrative judgment.” The court stated, “[T]he commission had no power to dispense with these statutory requirements… defendant’s proposed action would be illegal.” The court determined that furnishing water usually involves a monopoly to avoid duplication of facilities, which is an important reason it is subject to public regulation. The dissent argued that the Water Authority should have been allowed to serve the hospital and that Swan Lake lacked standing. The majority rejected these arguments, holding that Swan Lake was an aggrieved party and that the Water Authority’s actions circumvented the necessary regulatory oversight by the Water Resources Commission. The court explicitly stated it was not determining which entity *should* serve the hospital; that determination was for the Water Resources Commission.