Opinion ID: 1202187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Out of Water

Text: TAB endeavors to bolster its argument that the fee was premature by attacking the trial court's finding that the City was out of water in January 1986. TAB asserts that the City was not out of water on that date, and, therefore, the City improperly required these litigants, as new customers, to pay a fee grounded on the City's finding that it was out of water. In support of its position, TAB points to the fact that new customers continue to be added to the system, that water is still running through the taps in Virginia Beach, and that the first recital in the 1986 ordinance itself stated that the City determined that current water supplies will be inadequate to meet projected demand after 1990. Furthermore, TAB points out that expansion of the capacity of the water treatment facility, a substantial component of the project costs, will not be needed until 1995. Therefore, TAB urges that the costs associated with furnishing water to new and old customers until 1990, when the City has said it would run out of water, are identical. TAB submits that the ordinance establishing the fee is arbitrary and capricious legislation which cannot pass muster, because customers connected after January 1986 are required to pay a fee based on a presumption that contradicts the City Council's own predictions of when the City would run out of water. The record reflects that, for the Norfolk water system, the safe yield capacity (the maximum amount of good quality water that can be produced during a critical drought or dry period) is 70 million gallons per day (mgd). The City's exhibits showed that between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1986, the demand on the Norfolk water system exceeded its safe yield capacity, growing from 69.14 mgd to 71.91 mgd. The parties presented conflicting testimony concerning the percentage of the level of risk that should be factored into the safe yield determination and on the question whether safe yield meant water distribution capacity or water supply capacity. Assuming that TAB met its initial burden of establishing that the ordinance was unreasonable because it imposed a fee designed to meet a water shortage which, by its own estimation, would not exist until a later date, the City's evidence established that the issue is fairly debatable. Furthermore, the trial court's finding that the City was out of water on January 6, 1986, that is, current water supplies were inadequate to meet future demand and that the system exceeded its safe yield capacity, is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.