McNeill v. Town of Whiteville

Olark, C. J. It bas been beld in this Court on numerous occasions that water and sewerage bonds are for a necessary expense, and as sucb can be issued without the approval of tbe voters. Swindell v. Belhaven, 173 N. C., 1. This principle bas not been changed by cbajoter 106, Extra Session 1921. It is true that section 2943 of said chapter does not specifically mention sewerage bonds in naming the deductions to be considered in arriving at the net indebtedness of a municipality; but it does include in said section 2943 (b) in “the deductions to be made from gross debt in computing net debt,” among the items (subsection 5), on 142: “The amount of bonded debt included in the gross debt incurred or to be incurred for water, gas, electric light or power purposes or two or more of the said purposes.” We-are of opinion that a water system for a city or town is incomplete without the means of taking care of the waste and to carry away the water after the same has been used. When it is said that a town has a water system, we understand, of course, that it is coupled with a sewerage system as an integral part thereof. The General Assembly, when it enacted the Municipal Finance Act, could not have intended to leave out so important a part of a town water system as the sewerage, which takes care of the waste. We think his Honor was correct in holding that in estimating the percentage of indebtedness which a town is entitled to incur, which is reached by deducting from its gross debt the indebtedness incurred or to be incurred for a water system, properly included therein a reasonable and just amount of bonded indebtedness for the sewerage system as a part thereof. We do not think that the fact that the General Assembly has by chapter 166, Laws 1923, authorized an alternative method of financing an installation of sewerage in any wise militates against the plan the town has adopted. The act of 1923, while giving towns the privilege of adopting a different system, does not deprive them of the power to proceed in the manner which its authorities in this case have seen fit to adopt. Indeed, the act is careful to provide that it shall not repeal any other method or proceedings that has been authorized or adopted for providing sewerage. It is not claimed before us that $75,000 is not a reasonable and just allotment for that purpose. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.