Facts
- The City of Wichita Falls (the City) owned and operated its municipal water system.
- Under an earlier ordinance (Ordinance 10-57), the City had furnished water service to certain customers who lived outside the City’s corporate limits.
- In 1969, the City adopted Ordinance 69-86, which prohibited new water-service connections for property located outside the City limits.
- The City continued providing water to nonresidents who already had service connections before Ordinance 69-86, but it generally refused new applications for outside-the-city connections made after the ordinance took effect.
- The City’s stated purpose for Ordinance 69-86 was to conserve and manage the municipal water supply so that water would be available for development of vacant land within the City’s boundaries.
- Billy G. Melton lived outside the corporate limits and had not been receiving City water service under Ordinance 10-57.
- After Ordinance 69-86 was adopted, Melton requested a new connection for water service to his residence; the City denied the request based on Ordinance 69-86.
- Melton sued the City seeking a mandatory injunction compelling the City to provide him water service; during the litigation, he obtained temporary water service through a temporary injunction.
- After trial, the court denied permanent injunctive relief and ruled that the City was not required to provide Melton water service outside the City limits.
- Melton appealed, arguing that the City’s denial was unlawful and discriminatory because some other nonresidents continued to receive City water service.
Issues
- Whether the City, after adopting Ordinance 69-86, was required to furnish a new water connection to a nonresident living outside the City limits.
- Whether denying Melton a new outside-the-city connection, while continuing service to pre-ordinance nonresident customers, was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory in violation of constitutional protections.
- Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s findings upholding the City’s policy and denying a permanent mandatory injunction.
Decision
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the City.
- The City was not required to extend municipal water service beyond its corporate limits to provide Melton a new connection.
- Ordinance 69-86’s prospective cutoff of new outside-the-city connections was a permissible policy choice tied to municipal planning and allocation of water resources.
- Continuing water service for customers who had been connected before Ordinance 69-86 did not make the City’s denial to Melton unlawful, because those customers were not similarly situated to post-ordinance applicants.
- Melton did not prove that the City selectively granted post-1969 outside-the-city connections to others while denying him, or that the ordinance and its enforcement lacked a rational basis.
- Because Melton failed to show an unlawful or unconstitutional refusal of service, he was not entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction compelling the City to provide water.
Legal Principles
- A Texas municipality operating a water system generally has discretion to decide whether to furnish utility service outside its corporate limits, and a nonresident has no automatic right to demand such service.
- Municipal ordinances and utility policies are presumed valid; a challenger bears the burden to show the action is clearly arbitrary or unreasonable or violates constitutional guarantees.
- Under rational-basis review, a city may distinguish between customers who had service before a policy change and new applicants after the change, so long as the line drawn is reasonable.
- “Grandfathering” existing utility connections while refusing new ones can be a lawful prospective approach, particularly when tied to municipal resource management and land-use objectives.
- A party seeking a permanent mandatory injunction must show a legal entitlement to the relief and an unlawful refusal by the governmental entity; disagreement with policy choices, without proof of unlawful discrimination or irrationality, is insufficient.
Conclusion
Melton v. City of Wichita Falls holds that Wichita Falls could enforce Ordinance 69-86 to refuse new water connections outside its corporate limits while continuing to serve nonresidents who were connected before the ordinance, and that Melton failed to prove the City’s denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, or unconstitutional, so a permanent mandatory injunction compelling service was properly denied.