Opinion ID: 1386623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Utility

Text: The amenities section of the development review system requires the calculation of a score for the component of public water availability. Section 6.4(f) provides that [t]his criterion assesses the availability of existing public water service with available capacity that is approved by the County Health Department and/or Public Service District to the site at the time of the development proposal application. The Ordinance provides for a score of 0 where public water is available; 3 where central water is proposed; and 11 where private wells must be utilized. As support for the zoning administrator's position that Jefferson Utilities was not entitled to the lowest score possible in assessing the availability of public water, Mr. Raco opined that the word public means `owned by the people' or `government owned.' Given the private ownership of Jefferson Utilities, the zoning administrator awarded Jefferson Utilities with a score of 3 based on the ownership approach he adopted. Appellants Jefferson Utilities and Buckeye Development challenge this reasoning, asserting that the law does not support a construction that views only government owned water suppliers as entities who qualify under the Ordinance as providing public water under the meaning of the Ordinance provisions. Appellants urge this Court to recognize that government ownership is not required to invoke the use of the term public for purposes of assessing the availability of water. As support for this position, they assert that the terms public water system and public utility are defined by state law in a manner that supports viewing Jefferson Utilities as a provider of public water, rather than as a central water system provider under the reasoning employed by the zoning administrator. Pursuant to statutes enacted to govern the public health system, a public water system is defined as any water supply or system that regularly supplies or offers to supply water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if serving at least an average of twenty-five individuals per day for at least sixty days per year, or which has at least fifteen service connections, and shall include: (1) Any collection, treatment, storage and distribution facilities under the control of the owner or operator of such system and used primarily in connection with such system; and (2) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control which are used primarily in connection with such system.... W.Va.Code § 16-1-9a(a) (2001 & Supp.2005). For purposes of applying laws adopted pertaining to the public service commission, the term public utility is defined by statute to mean any person or persons, or association of persons, however associated, whether incorporated or not, including municipalities, engaged in any business, whether herein enumerated or not, which is, or shall hereafter be held to be, a public service. W.Va. Code § 24-1-2 (1979) (Repl.Vol.2004). This Court has previously held that the key to determining whether a public utility is involved is not the issue of the ownership of the entity providing the service, but instead whether that specific entity has dedicated or held out its services, such as gas; oil; electricity; or water, to the public in a manner that suggests that it is in the business of supplying the public, rather than a limited class of individuals, with a particular service. See Wilhite v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 150 W.Va. 747, 149 S.E.2d 273 (1966). In ruling that all public utilities, whether publicly or privately owned, are subject to the same treatment and supervision of the Public Service Commission in State ex rel. City of Wheeling v. Renick, 145 W.Va. 640, 651, 116 S.E.2d 763, 769 (1960), this Court interpreted West Virginia § 24-1-2 to apply to privately owned suppliers of public services, such as Jefferson Utilities. Accord Syl. Pt. 7, Affiliated Constr. Trades Found. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 211 W.Va. 315, 565 S.E.2d 778 (2002) (holding that [e]lectric generation and transmission facilities intended solely for the sale of electricity on the wholesale market are within the statutory definition of public utility set forth in West Virginia Code § 24-2-1 (1991) (Repl.Vol.2001) whenever it appears that the electricity produced will, in the course of distribution, ultimately be sold to the public). Jefferson Utilities is regulated by the Public Service Commission in connection with its provision of water to citizens of Jefferson County, West Virginia, and clearly qualifies as a public utility under the laws of this State. See W.Va.Code § 24-1-2. The reasoning employed by the zoning administrator in requiring governmental ownership as a prerequisite to awarding the lowest score available for the amenities assessment element of public water availability fails to withstand scrutiny. It is the fact of the water availability itself and not the ownership of the entity providing such water that controls the issue. Rather than focusing singularly on the word public, as the zoning administrator appears to have conducted his analysis, the critical component of this portion of the amenities assessment is the fact of the availability of water that can be distributed to potential land owners  i.e. the public. Regardless of whether the water supplier's ownership is private or public, the key component at issue is the availability of water. When the Legislature recently adopted a comprehensive land use planning schema, the term utility was expressly defined to include distribution of services by private entities. See W.Va.Code § 8A-1-2(ff) (2004 & Supp.2005) (Utility means a public or private distribution service to the public that is regulated by the Public Service Commission.). Accordingly, we hold that a privately owned entity engaged in providing water services to the public that qualifies as a public utility or utility under state law is entitled to be viewed as providing public water for purposes of calculating the requisite land evaluation and site assessment phase of the development review system required by the Ordinance. Application of this ruling requires that under the facts of this case, Jefferson Utilities would be entitled to the lowest LESA score possible for the provision of public water, that is a 0, rather than the 3 that was awarded by Mr. Raco.