Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 123 / Act 34 of 1917

Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.141

Sale of water; authority of municipal corporation to contract with city, village, township, or authority; price; limits; applicability and effective date of subsection (2); adjustments; proceedings to determine rate changes; retail rate; applicability of act.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WATER FURNISHED OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL LIMITS


Act 34 of 1917


123.141 Sale of water; authority of municipal corporation to contract with city, village, township, or authority; price; limits; applicability and effective date of subsection (2); adjustments; proceedings to determine rate changes; retail rate; applicability of act.

Sec. 1.

    (1) A municipal corporation, referred to in this act as a corporation, authorized by law to sell water outside of its territorial limits, may contract for the sale of water with a city, village, township, or authority authorized to provide a water supply for its inhabitants.

    (2) The price charged by the city to its customers shall be at a rate which is based on the actual cost of service as determined under the utility basis of ratemaking. This subsection shall not remove any minimum or maximum limits imposed contractually between the city and its wholesale customers during the remaining life of the contract. This subsection shall not apply to a water system that is not a contractual customer of another water department and that serves less than 1% of the population of the state. This subsection shall take effect with the first change in wholesale or retail rate by the city or its contractual customers following the effective date of this subsection. Any city that has not adjusted rates in conformity with this subsection by April 1, 1982 shall include in the next ensuing rate period an adjustment to increase or decrease rates to wholesale or retail customers, so that each class of customer pays rates which will yield the same estimated amount of revenue as if the rate adjustment had been retroactive to April 1, 1982. A city that is subject to section 5e of Act No. 279 of the Public Acts of 1909, being section 117.5e of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall begin proceedings to determine rate changes pursuant to section 5e(b) of Act No. 279 of the Public Acts of 1909, being section 117.5e of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (3) The retail rate charged to the inhabitants of a city, village, township, or authority which is a contractual customer as provided by subsection (2) shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service.

    (4) This act shall not apply to a jointly operated water system or authority that supplies raw untreated water to 2 or more municipalities.

History: 1917, Act 34, Imd. Eff. Apr. 5, 1917 ;-- CL 1929, 2445 ;-- CL 1948, 123.141 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 53, Imd. Eff. May 17, 1957 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 89, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1981

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2021 · leading case: City of Novi v. City of Detroit
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Novi v. City of Detroit (1989) mich · cites it 34× “At the time this contract was entered into, MCL 123.141; MSA 5.2581, the statute from which Detroit derived its authority to enter into contracts for the supply of water, provided that the water rate charged to Novi could not be less than the rate charged to retail customers…”
Trahey v. City of Inkster (2015) michctapp · cites it 4× “” 4 MCL 123.141 does not alter the general standard of reasonableness applied by courts when reviewing utility rates.”
City of Warren v. City of Detroit (2007) ca6 · cites it 3× “Warren alleged that the water purchase contract between Warren and Detroit requires a reasonable water rate and that Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.141 (2) requires Detroit to establish water rates based on the actual cost of service as determined under the utility basis of rate-making.”
Davis v. City of Detroit (2005) michctapp · cites it 2× “Defendants contend that plaintiff erroneously argues that the city was engaged in a proprietary function because it commercially sells water to other cities pursuant to MCL 123.141. We agree. Under MCL 691.1413, governmental immunity does not extend to activities “conducted…”
Kincaid v. City of Flint (2015) michctapp · cites it 2× “However, before defendant’s motion for summary disposition was heard, plaintiffs moved the trial court for leave to amend their complaint to allege a violation of MCL 123.141(2) and (3). 5 *80 Defendant responded to plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint by arguing that it…”
Oneida Charter Township v. City of Grand Ledge (2009) michctapp · cites it 28× “This case requires us to decide whether MCL 123.141, which authorizes municipalities to contract for the sale of water outside their territorial limits, mandates that rates charged for the sale of water directly to extraterritorial individual inhabitants of a “contractual…”
Carthan v. Snyder Case No. 16-CV-10444 (In re Flint Water Cases) (2018) mied “LAWS § 123.141 ). Guertin v. Michigan , Case No.”
Davis v. City of Detroit (2006) michctapp · cites it 2× “Defendants contend that plaintiff erroneously argues that the city was engaged in a proprietary function because it commercially sells water to other cities pursuant to MCL 123.141. We agree. Under MCL 691.1413, governmental immunity does not extend to activities "conducted…”
City of Plymouth v. City of Detroit (1985) mich · cites it 12× “We conclude that MCL 123.141; MSA 5.2581 does not provide the only standard of reasonableness to be applied.”
City of Warren v. City of Detroit (2004) michctapp “” MCL 123.141(2). It was precisely that formula plaintiff sought.”
United States v. City of Loveland, Ohio (2010) ca6 “arren , Warren filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Macomb, Michigan, alleging that Detroit, which provided Warren’s water, breached its contractual obligation to charge “reasonable” rates by raising its rates to pay for costs associated with the obligations…”
Township of Meridian v. City of East Lansing (1955) mich · cites it 2× “” This has, apparently, reference to CL 1948, § 123.141 (Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.2581), which is as follows: “Municipal corporations having authority by law to sell water outside their territorial limits, hereinafter referred to as corporations, may contract for such sale with…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.141(1) — 4 cases
City of Novi v. City of Detroit (1989) mich “At the time this contract was entered into, MCL 123.141; MSA 5.2581, the statute from which Detroit derived its authority to enter into contracts for the supply of water, provided that the water rate charged to Novi could not be less than the rate charged to retail customers…”
City of Novi v. City of Detroit (1988) michctapp
Oneida Charter Township v. City of Grand Ledge (2009) michctapp “This case requires us to decide whether MCL 123.141, which authorizes municipalities to contract for the sale of water outside their territorial limits, mandates that rates charged for the sale of water directly to extraterritorial individual inhabitants of a “contractual…”
Deerhurst Condominium Owners Association Inc v. City of Westland (2019) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.141(2) — 11 cases
City of Novi v. City of Detroit (1989) mich “At the time this contract was entered into, MCL 123.141; MSA 5.2581, the statute from which Detroit derived its authority to enter into contracts for the supply of water, provided that the water rate charged to Novi could not be less than the rate charged to retail customers…”
Trahey v. City of Inkster (2015) michctapp “” 4 MCL 123.141 does not alter the general standard of reasonableness applied by courts when reviewing utility rates.”
Kincaid v. City of Flint (2015) michctapp “However, before defendant’s motion for summary disposition was heard, plaintiffs moved the trial court for leave to amend their complaint to allege a violation of MCL 123.141(2) and (3). 5 *80 Defendant responded to plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint by arguing that it…”
Davis v. City of Detroit (2005) michctapp “Defendants contend that plaintiff erroneously argues that the city was engaged in a proprietary function because it commercially sells water to other cities pursuant to MCL 123.141. We agree. Under MCL 691.1413, governmental immunity does not extend to activities “conducted…”
City of Warren v. City of Detroit (2004) michctapp “” MCL 123.141(2). It was precisely that formula plaintiff sought.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.141(3) — 6 cases
Trahey v. City of Inkster (2015) michctapp “” 4 MCL 123.141 does not alter the general standard of reasonableness applied by courts when reviewing utility rates.”
Oneida Charter Township v. City of Grand Ledge (2009) michctapp “This case requires us to decide whether MCL 123.141, which authorizes municipalities to contract for the sale of water outside their territorial limits, mandates that rates charged for the sale of water directly to extraterritorial individual inhabitants of a “contractual…”
Jamila Youmans v. Charter Township of Bloomfield (2021) michctapp
Larry Shears v. Douglas Bingaman (2017) michctapp
Oneida Charter Township v. City of Grand Ledge (2009) mich
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.