Opinion ID: 2511845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: senate bill 29 applies to this appeal

Text: ¶ 18 A [t]hreshold question[] in any case on appeal [is] whether there is an actual controversy. State v. Lane, 2009 UT 35, ¶ 15, 212 P.3d 529. Thus, the first question we must answer is whether Senate Bill 29, which amended Utah Code section 19-4-111 to add an exemption for corporate public water systems, applies to this appeal. [3] ¶ 19 Largely as a result of Holliday Water's lobbying efforts, Utah Code section 19-4-111 was amended in the 2009 Utah State Legislative session. See Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, ch. 371 § 1, 2009 Utah Laws 2029-30. Holliday Water contends that the new amendments to Utah Code section 19-4-111 apply to this appeal and moot the controversy between the parties. ¶ 20 Salt Lake County disagrees, arguing the amended section 19-4-111 does not moot this appeal because it does not apply retroactively to obligations that existed before the legislative amendments were passed. Thus, according to Salt Lake County, the prior version of the statute applies, and under that language, a controversy still remains. ¶ 21 We agree with Holliday Water on this point. The burden of persuading the court that an issue is moot `lies with the party asserting mootness.' See Cedar Mountain Envtl. Inc. v. Tooele County, 2009 UT 48, ¶ 26, 214 P.3d 95 (Durrant, J., dissenting) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). [M]ootness can be determined by facts that change or develop as the suit is pending. Id. Indeed, [l]egislation can often moot a civil case, even where the legislation passes after the events have transpired in the case. Salt Lake City v. Tax Comm'n, 813 P.2d 1174, 1177 (Utah 1991); see also Berning v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 990 F.2d 272, 277 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801)) (recognizing the Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the principle that Congress may impose new legal rules to pending cases). ¶ 22 We find that Holliday Water has met its burden to demonstrate mootness. Although Salt Lake County is correct that the 2009 amendments to Utah Code section 19-4-111 do not apply retroactively and thus cannot alter contractual rights that existed before their enactment ( see infra Part III), Utah Code section 19-4-111 is the current law, and it prospectively governs the obligations of water companies to add fluoride to their water supplies. The 2009 amended version of this section provides: 19-4-111 Fluori[d]e added to or removed from waterElection or shareholder vote required ... (2)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (7) or Subsection 19-4-104(1)(a), public water supplies, whether state, county, municipal, or district, may not have fluori[d]e added to or removed from the water supply without the approval of a majority of voters in an election in the area affected. ... (3) If a majority of voters on an opinion question under Subsection (2)[] approve the addition of fluori[d]e or the removal of fluori[d]e from the public water supplies within the county, the local health departments shall require the addition of fluori[d]e to or the removal of fluori[d]e from all public water supplies within that county other than those systems: (a) that are functionally separate from any other public water systems in that county; ... (7) (a) A supplier may not add fluori[d]e to or remove fluori[d]e from a corporate public water system unless the majority of the votes cast by the shareholders of the corporate public water system authorize the supplier to add or remove the fluori[d]e. (b) If a corporate public water system's shareholders do not vote to add fluori[d]e under Subsection (7)(a), the supplier shall annually provide notice to a person who receives water from the corporate public water system of the average amount of fluori[d]e in the water. Utah Code Ann. § 19-4-111 (Supp.2009) (emphasis added). ¶ 23 The statute defines a corporate public water system as a public water system that is owned by a corporation engaged in distributing water only to its shareholders. Id. § 19-4-111(1)(a). Under this statute, if an entity demonstrates it is a corporate public water system, the authority to make the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate its water supply is vested in the shareholders of that entity not the voters of the corresponding county. See id. § 19-4-111(7)(a). Although individuals other than shareholders may be the primary consumers of the company's water, the decision to fluoridate does not belong to them; it belongs to the shareholders. Thus, the next question we must answer is whether Holliday Water is a corporate public water system as defined by the amended statute.