# In Re Arbuckle Master Conservancy Dist, District Ct., Murray Cty., No 9660 > Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 23, 1970 · 474 P.2d 385 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633358 ## Case - **Full name:** In Re ARBUCKLE MASTER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, DISTRICT COURT, MURRAY COUNTY, NO. 9660. ARBUCKLE MASTER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, Plaintiff in Error, v. G. Don PETITTI, Gene Cope, William G. Gaskins, E. Dunlap, Jr., Bob Downing, John H. Frazier, Jack O. Conroy, the City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, the City of Davis, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, and the Southern Oklahoma Development Association, a Voluntary Association, Defendants in Error - **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma - **Decided:** June 23, 1970 - **Citations:** 474 P.2d 385; 1970 OK 127 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Jackson - **Judges:** Berry, Davison, Williams, Blackbird, Hodges, Lavender, Mc-Inerney, Irwin, Jackson - **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633358 ## Opinion text JACKSON, Justice (dissenting). In 1963 the Legislature of this State declared that it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and promote the optimum development and utilization of all feasible reservoir sites for the storage of the waters of this State for the benefit of the public. 82 O.S.Supp.1963, Sec. 1351. In the same Act the Legislature created the Water Conservation and Storage Commission and authorized it, where necessary to promote the optimum development and utilization of reservoir sites, to acquire interests in land. The Commission is an instrumentality of the state, and the exercise of its powers is an essential governmental function of the state. 82 O.S.Supp.1963, Sec. 1352. When a proposal is made by a governmental agency to construct a reservoir in this state it is the duty of the Water Conservation and Storage Commission to study the proposal. If the Commission concludes there are surplus waters in excess of the present and future needs of water users of the contributing watershed available at the proposed reservoir site for the full and optimum development of the reservoir it is the duty of the Commission to request the Federal and State agencies to design the reservoir to accommodate or include the surplus waters. 82 O.S.Supp.1963, Sec. 1354. In the instant case it was contemplated during the planning stages that the City of Ardmore would become a participating municipality in the project and would contract for all of the storage not required by other contracting municipalities and water users in the District. However, on February 4, 1964, the people of Ardmore, by their vote, rejected for the second time the opportunity to become a participating municipality. Ardmore was released from its prior commitments by the Department of the Interior on March 11, 1964, and with the approval of the District Court on April 14, 1964. By reason of the refusal of Ardmore to financially obligate itself by contract for the surplus water it became the statutory duty of the Water Conservation and Storage Commission to enter into a contract with the Federal government to receive the surplus storage and to negotiate with municipalities or other local interests "of the State” to receive the surplus waters to be impounded within the reservoir. 82 O.S. Sup.1963, Sec. 1355, provides in pertinent part: “Whenever any project or plan for the construction * * * of any dam, reservoir or other structure includes within its design and specifications provisions for the development of water supplies for *394 domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial and other purposes the Commission is hereby directed to negotiate with the municipalities or other local interests of this State and its agencies and the Federal government * * * for the purpose of determining the cost of reimbursing the Federal government for the allocated cost of including such municipal, agricultural and industrial water storage within such construction. Any available storage for such purposes which cannot reasonably be used within the present or estimated future firm demands of local users may be contracted for by the Commission in order to assure the Federal government that such added cost will be provided as authorized by Federal law, and that necessary funds for any charges shall be paid by the Commission to the Federal government pursuant to such contract and applicable Federal law after examination and determination by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board that such charges are in harmony with existing Federal law and policy at the time that the projects are built and the contracts between the Commission and the Federal government are executed. * * (Emphasis supplied.) The Commission entered into a contract with the Federal government on March 19, 1964, to receive Ardmore’s share of the storage facility rendered “surplus” because of Ardmore’s refusal to enter into a “firm demand” for its allocated share of the facility. Under the statute the Commission did what it was directed to do; that is, acquire the surplus waters to be impounded in the reservoir. The facility could not have been constructed for “optimum development” without the financial assistance of the Commission. Question: How long must the Commission wait on “local firm demands” before it may negotiate with municipalities farther removed from the reservoir? In this case approximately three years elapsed before the Commission entered into meaningful negotiations to dispose of the surplus water. In the meantime the reservoir was constructed and water was being supplied to those municipalities who had entered into firm financial commitments. The first installment under the contract with the Federal government was due to be paid in October 1969. Under the contract between the Commission and the Federal government entered into on March 19, 1964, it was the duty of the Commission to give “participating municipalities” and the District the first opportunity to purchase water supply storage rights. The Town of Davis may have been deprived of that privilege. But undoubtedly this provision was not intended to include Ardmore, for Ardmore was specifically released from its participation in the reservoir project by the Secretary of the Interior on March 11, 1964. If the Water Conservation and Storage Commission is unable to enter into firm negotiations with municipalities in Oklahoma outside the described boundaries of the district for the sale of its surplus reservoir facilities, then it is apparent that the Commission’s ability to dispose of its surplus water facilities will be severely impaired. It is expensive for a prospective municipal customer to make surveys and conduct municipal elections. Such a municipality will not eagerly enter into negotiations for the Commission’s surplus water facilities unless it can believe that the Commission can follow through with a contract. I believe the trial court’s decision is in conflict with the Commission’s statutory powers and should be reversed. I would dissolve the injunction against the Water Conservation and Storage Commission and authorize the Commission to proceed with its contract, after first giving the “participating municipalities” an opportunity to claim a greater share of the surplus water. I am authorized to say that Irwin, C. J., concurs in the views herein expressed. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633358. Public record. Not legal advice.