TDB Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson
263 P.3d 669
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- TDB Tucson Group, L.L.C. sought water service to land outside the City of Tucson’s corporate boundaries.
- The Property is in an unincorporated area of Pima County adjacent to Tucson.
- In 2007 the City issued a Water Availability letter indicating readiness to provide water service to the Property.
- The City later adopted an interim policy against extending service outside boundaries unless legally obligated.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the Property was not within the City’s service area under the GMA definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City owes water service outside its boundaries. | TDB argues the Property is within the City’s service area. | City contends no duty absent statutory/contractual obligation. | No duty; property not in the service area under §45-402(31)(a). |
| How to interpret 'area of land actually being served water' in §45-402(31)(a). | TDB asserts a broad interpretation including surrounding serviced areas. | City argues the phrase requires actual service or an owned distribution system. | Plain language controls; the Property is not in the service area. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veach v. City of Phoenix, 102 Ariz. 195, 427 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1967) (municipality's duty to provide water for fire protection when obligated; reasonable protection may be required)
- Sabin v. Town of Wickenburg, 68 Ariz. 75, 200 P.2d 342 (Ariz. 1948) (established service zones; discrimination in deposits may be unjust; extension decisions may be discretionary)
- Travaini v. Maricopa Cnty., 9 Ariz.App. 228, 450 P.2d 1021 (Ariz. App. 1969) (city must provide service once a decision to provide is made, on nondiscriminatory basis)
- City of Milwaukee v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 268 Wis. 116, 66 N.W.2d 716 (Wis. 1954) (public utilities extend service beyond city limits where undertaking supports it; not controlling here but cited for context)
- Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner, 148 Ariz. 343, 714 P.2d 836 (Ariz. 1985) (outside service area inquiry; need actual service or owned distribution system to be within service area)
- Yuma Valley Land Co. v. City of Yuma, 227 Ariz. 228, 256 P.3d 625 (Ariz. 2011) (mere adjacency of lines outside city boundaries does not create obligation to serve)