township in the RLCWA’s district took on a different status simply by virtue of its annexation by another township in the RLCWA’s district. Second, the federal anti-curtailment statute specifically anticipates that a city will use its annexation of property located within the service area of a rural water association as a basis to provide service to that property, and expressly prohibits such provision of service while the water district is indebted to the federal government. See 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). Third, case law shows that a municipality’s annexation of property located within a rural water association does not, of itself, remove it from the water district for § 1926(b) purposes. See, e.g., Glenpool Util. Serv. Auth. v. Creek County Rural Water Disk, 861 F.2d 1211 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Bell Arthur Water Corp. v. Greenville Util.
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 that  1926b prohibited munici pality from using its annexation of territory within rural water district as springboard for providing its own water service to residents holding municipal condemnation of water associations facilities and certificate violative of  1926b 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 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