Vacations - Easements, Reserves, Streets, Walkways - 1979-1981 pt1

Home

Y.-. 350 EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY DIST: v. EAST BA RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RICHMO 93 Cal.App.3d 346; — Cal.Rptr. = 93 Cal.Ap understanding that said amount would be disbursed as directed by the final judgment of the court. EBMUD accomplished the relocation of its facilities by cutting them off, removing them from service, and installing new lines in other streets to achieve equivalent hydraulic capacity for the whole general area. The relocation expenses incurred by EBMUD amounted to $56,435. >' After the relocation of facilities was completed, EBMUD brought a declaratory relief action against the City and the Agency in order to determine the rights and duties of the parties. Following a trial without a jury, the lower court held that the cost of relocation of water lines and appurtenances which was necessitated by the implementation of Project 10-A could not be imposed upon EBMUD. In accordance therewith, the trial court concluded that EBMUD was entitled to a judgment against the appellants in the sum of $56,435.47 plus interest. The present appeal is taken from the latter judgment.2 (1) In disposing of the seminal issue raised on appeal, i.e., who is to be charged with the relocation cost of water facilities occasioned by the implementation of Project 10-A, initially we note that the statutory right granted to EBMUD to construct, operate and maintain certain facilities in and along public streets and ways (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 10101, 12808) is . not a vested property right, but merely a franchise (State of California v.. Marin Mun. W. Dist. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 699, 703 [111 P.2d 6511; Pacific TeL & Tel. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 133; 147 [17 Cal.Rptr. 687]). (2) It is well settled that in absence of specific legislation to the contrary, a public utility accepts franchise rights in public streets subject to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities therein at its own expense when necessary to make way for proper governmental use of the streets (New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Drainage Comm. (1905) 197 U.S. 453, 461-462 [49 L.Ed. 831, 835, 25 S.Ct. 471]; LA. County Flood Control Dist. v. Southern Cal, Edison Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 331, 334 [333 P.2d 11; Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of LA. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 713, 716 [329 P.2d 2891; East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. County of Contra Costa (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 477, 480 [19 Cal.Rptr. 5061). 2Although appellants were also ordered to pay the additional sum of $7,000 plus interest for the value of the reserved easement in 7th Street, the appeal at hand is limited only to that portion of the judgment which pertains to the award of relocation costs incurred with respect to 12th and 13th Streets. [May 1979]