 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CITY WATER BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AUTHORITY YORK CITY COUNTY VILLAGE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT SET RATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CITY USERS PURSUANT REVIEW WATER USAGE WATER SYSTEM WATER CONSUMPTION EXCESS WATER CALCULATION MUNICIPALITIES ENTITLEMENT WATER WESTCHESTER SUPREME COURT DETERMINATION APPELLATE DIVISION SCARSDALE APPELLANT-RESPONDENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY |
IN THE MATTER OF VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE, APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS C.
JORLING, AS COMMIS- SIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, RESPONDENT, AND NEW YORK CITY WATER BOARD,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, INTERVENOR-
APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
91 N.Y.2d 507, 695 N.E.2d 1113, 673 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1998).
May 7, 1998
2 No. 40
(98 NY Int. 0048)
Decided May 7, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Joel R. Dichter, for appellant-respondent.
Marguerite R. Weiss, for intervenor-appellant- respondent.
John Hogrogian, for respondent-appellant.
Gordon J. Johnson, for respondent.
CIPARICK, J.:
The instant appeal pits the New York City Water Board (Water Board)
against the Village of Scarsdale (Village) and the County of
Westchester (County), with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) in themiddle. At issue is which
governmental entity has the authority, pursuant to section 24 360 of
the Administrative Code of the City of New York and section 1045 j of
the Public Authorities Law, to determine the proper methodology for
calculating the amount of water consumed by non City municipalities
drawing water from the New York City water supply system and to fix
the rates charged for water usage.
Since 1905, the City of New York has been statutorily required to
furnish quantities of water to various municipalities and water
districts in certain counties north of the City in which City
watershed areas and water supply facilities are located ( see
Administrative Code § 24 360(a),(d)). In August 1991, due to rising
costs, respondent Water Board petitioned respondent DEC to fix a "fair
and reasonable" rate for water supplied to municipalities and
districts located outside the City. The DEC declined to set a rate,
explaining that pursuant to the Administrative Code and the Public
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
