Protecting The Territory of Federally Indebted

Rural Water Associations/Districts/Non-Profits

Title 7  United States Code  §1926(b)  was enacted by the United States Congress to (1) encourage the development of rural water systems throughout the United States, (2) enable federally indebted water associations to provide a cost effective and safe supply of water to rural residents and (3) provide a secure means to repay government loans. This statute grants federally indebted water associations/districts complete exclusivity in selling water within their service area. Since the enactment of §1926(b), federally indebted water associations/districts have been compelled to file suit in Federal Court to enforce their lawful right to be the exclusive water service provider within their service area.  The following are some examples of Court proceedings and other challenges encountered by Rural Water.

Updates
1926(b) Presentation Materials/Panel Discussion - 2006 NRWA Annual Conference
Rural Water Update 2005
Rural Water Update 2006

Case Summaries


Creek County Rural Water Dist. #2 v.  Glenpool, Ok.

Creek County Rural Water Dist. #2 v. Tulsa, Ok.

Creek County Rural Water Dist. #2  v.  Jenks, Ok.

Sequoyah County Rural Water Dist. #7 v. Muldrow, Ok.

Murray County Rural Water Dist. #1 v. Sulphur, Ok.

Murray County Rural Water Dist. #1 v. Murray County Commissioners, Ok.

Butterfield Park Water Assoc. v. MoonGate Water Utility (NewMexico)

Payne County Rural Water Dist. #3 v. Perkins, Ok.

In re Payne County Rural Water Dist. #3 (deannexation proceeding)

Salem Water Users Assoc.  v. Bryant, Ark.

Pushmataha County Rural Water Dist. # 2 v. Town of Talihina

Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. #7 v. McAlester,Ok

Atoka County Rural Water Dist. #4 v. Atoka, Ok.

Tulsa County Rural Water Dist. #2 v. Tulsa County Commissioners, Ok.

Salem Water Users Assoc. v. Benton, Ark.

Dona Ana Water Assoc.  v. Las Cruses, N.M.

Moongate Water Co. v. Dona Ana Water Assoc. (New Mexico)

Montezuma Water v. Summit Ridge Water Dist. (Colorado)

Creek County Rural Water Dist. #2 v. Creek County, Ok.

McCurtain Country Rural Water Dist. #1 v. Hayworth, Ok.

Rural Water Districts/Associations

 Protecting Your Service Area From Municipal Competition/Encroachment

Chapter 1 - The Four Elements of 7 U.S.C § 1926(b)
 
 Chapter 2 - Making Service Available. How Much Is Enough?

Leading Federal Court Decisions on §1926(b)

Dramatic Developments for 7 U.S.C. sec. 1926(b)

Sequoyah County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. Town of Muldrow,  191 F.3d 1192,  (10th Cir.(Okla.), Aug 17, 1999)

Moongate Water Co., Inc. v. Butterfield Park Mut. Domestic Water Ass'n,  291 F.3d 1262  (10th Cir.(N.M.), Jun 03, 2002)

Rural Water Dist. No. 1, Ellsworth CountyKansas v. City of Wilson, Kansas,  243 F.3d 1263, (10th Cir.(Kan.), Mar 22, 2001)

Adams County Regional Water Dist. v. Village of Manchester, Ohio,  226 F.3d 513, (6th Cir.(Ohio), Jul 28, 2000)

Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester,  211 F.3d 1279  (10th Cir.(Okla.), May 02, 2000)

Rural Water System #1 v. City of Sioux Center,  202 F.3d 1035  (8th Cir.(Iowa), Jan 26, 2000)

North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San Juan, Tex.,  90 F.3d 910,  (5th Cir.(Tex.), Apr 15, 1996)

Glenpool Utility Services Authority v. Creek County Rural Water Dist. No. 2,  861 F.2d 1211  (10th Cir.(Okla.), Nov 21, 1988)

Moongate Water Co., Inc. v. Butterfield Park Mutual Domestic Water Ass'n.,  125 F.Supp.2d 1304  (D.N.M., Oct 25, 20

Title 7, United States Code, Section 1926(b) (copy of federal statute)

7 U.S.C. § 1926(b)   Dramatic Developments in 2003

Click on the link above to read about Doyle, Harris, Davis & Haughey's history, beginning with the firm's founding in 1948.
Click on the link above to learn more about the legal issues regarding Rural Water Districts

Rural Water Update 2006

Law practice emphasizing Commercial Law : Doyle, Harris, Davis & Haughey
1350 S. Boulder, International Building, Suite 700, Tulsa OK, 74119
tel 918.592.1276   fax 918.592.4389