Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City
Headline: Court blocks Boise’s new $300 monthly street ‘license’ fee as an unlawful impairment of a long-standing water company easement while allowing recovery for unpaid fire-service charges under an implied contract.
Holding:
- Prevents cities from imposing retroactive street rental fees that impair prior easements.
- Allows water companies to recover unpaid fire-service charges when a city continues using hydrants.
- Affirms that long-standing pipe grants are property rights assignable like other franchises.
Summary
Background
A private water company organized in West Virginia sued Boise City to recover payment for water the company supplied for fire-fighting. The company traced its right to lay pipes in Boise’s streets to an 1889 city ordinance granted to private individuals and later assigned to the company, and it invested heavily in the system. Boise defended by claiming (1) a 1906 city ordinance required the company to pay $300 monthly to use the streets, and (2) the company had to furnish fire water free under state law or had no contract to charge the city.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the 1889 grant was merely a revocable permission or a substantial, assignable street easement and whether the 1906 ordinance could force monthly payments. The Court found the 1889 grant created a substantial property right that was assignable and not a mere revocable license. The 1906 ordinance imposing the $300 monthly charge impaired that existing right and was therefore invalid as applied. On the city’s defenses, the Court noted state law provided a procedure for fixing reasonable water rates by commissioners; the commissioners had set rates for fire service, the company maintained service, and the city continued to use hydrants, so an implied contract arose and the company could recover for fire water.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents a city from imposing a retroactive street-license charge that destroys a prior vested easement. It allows a water company to recover unpaid charges when rates were set by the statutory commissioners and the city continued using the service. The Court reversed the judgment as to the license ordinance and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?