the entire project had been occupied or used for its intended purpose during the September 1975 semester. Ibid. Thus, it was necessary to determine the substantial completion date prior to assessing the liquidated damages award. See also Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Romart Constr., 577 So.2d 636 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (liquidated damages awarded for sixty-eight day delay in failing to substantially complete the project); Stone v. City of Areola, supra, 536 N.E.2d 1329 (liquidated damages can only be awarded until substantial completion date); American Druggists Ins. Co. v. Henry Contracting, Inc., 505 So.2d 734 (La.Ct.App.) (same), cert. denied, 511 So.2d 1156 (La.1987); Page v. Travis-Williamson County Water Control and Improvement Dist. No. 1, 367 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.1963) (<HOLDING>). Case law also suggests that, like liquidated
holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted holding that water conservation district elections and the public trust doctrine were two subjects improperly grouped under the general category of water