Source: https://www.azag.gov/sgo-opinions/state-plumbing-code?page=1
Timestamp: 2016-10-22 23:27:06
Document Index: 731332768

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', '§ 7', '§ 41', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 6', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 49', 'art. 202', '§ 51']

State Plumbing Code | Arizona Attorney General Skip to main content
HomeState Plumbing Code State Plumbing Code
Opinion No:I00-011 (R00-006)
Re: State Plumbing Code
A. Hal KeyChairman, Arizona Uniform Plumbing Code Commission
Jacqueline E. SchaferDirector, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
4. Adoption of Local Ordinances. Whether municipalities and counties have a deadline for adopting the Code by ordinance. 5. Variances. What procedures cities, towns or counties must follow to grant variances to the Code; whether variances are limited in any way by laws administered and enforced by ADEQ; and whether the Commission can authorize ADEQ to grant variances to the Code.
Enforcement. Municipalities and counties enforce the Code. No State agency, including ADEQ, may enforce the Code. Local governments do not need a delegation of authority from ADEQ to enforce the Code. Relationship Between the Code and ADEQ-Administered Laws. The Code does not supersede any laws ADEQ administers. The Code must be read in conjunction with other legal requirements.
Although the Commission must adopt and amend the Code, A.R.S. § 41-619(B)(3), (4), (F), the Legislature did not give the Commission enforcement authority. Moreover, neither the Act nor any other statute gives ADEQ or any other State agency the authority to enforce the Code.(2) Instead of establishing an enforcement mechanism at the State level, the Act requires municipalities and counties to adopt the Code by ordinance. 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 112, § 7(A). The absence of any state-level enforcement mechanism and the requirement that counties and municipalities adopt the Code by ordinance indicate the Legislature intended that municipalities and counties enforce the Code. Local governments typically enforce the ordinances they adopt. See, e.g., City of Tucson v. Rineer, 193 Ariz. 160, 166, 971 P.2d 207, 213 (App. 1998) (noting that City of Tucson charter gives mayor and council the power to adopt and enforce by ordinance all measures necessary for promotion of "health, comfort, safety, life, welfare and property" of inhabitants). The Act also gave cities, towns and counties the authority to grant variances from the Code, see A.R.S. § 41-619(C), which also suggests that those local governments are responsible for enforcing the Code. In addition, a municipality or county does not need a delegation from ADEQ pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 49-106 or -107 to enforce the Code.(3) Although local governments are responsible for administering the Code, ADEQ may also have regulatory responsibility over some of the subjects that are addressed in the Code. If ADEQ has delegated enforcement responsibility to a local jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 49-106 or -107, that local government would be responsible for enforcing both bodies of law. If not, the local jurisdiction enforces the Code, and ADEQ enforces the laws within its jurisdiction.
Even though the Code and certain ADEQ regulatory responsibilities concern the same subjects, the Code does not supercede ADEQ's authority. Courts attempt to give full force to all statutes and construe them "in a manner that 'will best serve the legislature's purposes, policies, and goals' apparent from the whole body of relevant law." Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 48, 54, 839 P.2d 1093, 1099 (1992). Courts will not presume the Legislature intended to supersede or impliedly repeal an earlier statute. Id. The Legislature's express purpose for creating the Commission is to "promote statewide, uniform plumbing standards." 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 112, § 6. The Act does not indicate or imply any legislative intent to supercede ADEQ’s statutory authority that focuses on environmental protection. Therefore, the Act does not supercede any statutes governing ADEQ or the rules promulgated to carry out those responsibilities.
If, however, the Code and ADEQ regulations conflict in areas within ADEQ’s specific statutory responsibility, ADEQ’s authority prevails over the Code. See Pima County v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133, 134, 654 P.2d 281, 282 (1982) (specific statute governs over more general one).(4) The resolution of specific conflicts that may arise will depend on the applicable statutory authority. You also asked whether the Commission must reference any ADEQ administered or enforced laws within the Code. Nothing requires the Commission to cross reference other laws within the Code; however, nothing prohibits the Commission from doing so. All related laws remain applicable and must be construed together, regardless of whether the Code directly references them.
Your opinion request specifically asked about the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding: the subjects covered by Appendices G, I and J; evaluations of site conditions, testing and evaluating soil characteristics; design and siting of sewage disposal systems to ensure environmental and public health protection; and setbacks for onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems to ensure environmental and public health protection. The Commission may address these subjects in the Code because they are addressed in the UPC. Specifically, Appendix I provides that the appropriate private sewage disposal system is determined based on “location, soil porosity, and groundwater level.” UPC Appendix I, § 1. See also UPC Appendix G, § 1(B) (parallel provision regarding residential gray water system). In addition, Appendix I establishes requirements for the location of private sewage disposal systems. See UPC Appendix I, § I(f), Table I-1. Because the UPC addresses site conditions, soil characteristics, and design, and location of sewage systems, the Commission may address these issues; however, the Commission should focus on its express statutory responsibility, which is to promote uniform plumbing standards. In addition, because the Legislature has specifically given ADEQ responsibilities regarding sewage systems, the Commission rules on this subject should not conflict with ADEQ rules on this subject. See A.R.S. §§ 49-104(10), (13), -361, 362. If there is a conflict, the ADEQ’s more specific authority would govern over the Code. Your opinion request also asks about the Commission’s authority to select onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems where conditions do not meet the specific standards provided for in the UPC. Because the Commission may modify the UPC as it deems appropriate, the Commission may adopt standards concerning the subject matter governed by the UPC but that differ from the UPC. Again, however, to the extent ADEQ also has regulatory responsibility over wastewater treatment and disposal systems, the Commission’s rules should not conflict with ADEQ rules in this area and, if there are conflicts, ADEQ’s more specific statutory responsibilities would govern over the Code.
In addition, a city, town, or county may grant variances to the Code on an individual project basis, and such variances must comply with all other applicable laws. The procedure for granting ordinances is determined at the local level, and the Commission does not have the authority to allow ADEQ to grant variances to the Code. Janet NapolitanoAttorney General
Uniform Plumbing Code, ch. 2, part. 202.0, Definition of Terms. The Code did not amend this definition. Thus, the Code itself does not identify the particular entity that will enforce it. Section 49-106, A.R.S., provides in part:
Another principle applied when there is an irreconcilable conflict between statutes is that the more recently-enacted statute controls. See Mead, Samuel & Co. v. Dyar, 127 Ariz. 565, 568, 622 P.2d 512, 515 (App. 1980). However, a later general statute does not prevail over a more specific statute enacted earlier. 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 51.05 (5th ed. 1992). AG Opinions Archive