Opinion ID: 1881042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Cleary District possessed the authority to enact its Decentralized Wastewater Use Ordinance.

Text: ¶ 9. At the heart of this appeal is whether Cleary had the authority to enact the ordinance being challenged by plaintiffs. Cleary argues that it is granted such authority under Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-173 [4] and § 19-5-175. [5] Plaintiffs recognize Cleary's authority to build, maintain, and regulate a sewer system within the Cleary District but argue that Cleary is without authority to enact its Decentralized Wastewater Use Ordinance because the Legislature granted the Mississippi State Board of Health sole authority to regulate septic tanks under the Mississippi Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs argue that a water or sewer district, being a statutory creation, may only exercise those powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by the Legislature and that such powers must be found within the four corners of the statute under which the agency operates. Strong v. Bostick, 420 So.2d 1356, 1361 (Miss.1982) (citing Miss. Milk Comm'n v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 235 So.2d 684 (Miss. 1970)). Because the statutes governing districts such as Cleary do not mention individual septic systems and the Legislature specifically granted the Department of Health authority to regulate individual on-site wastewater disposal systems (IOWDS) under Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq., plaintiffs allege that Cleary is without authority to regulate individual septic systems to control water quality within the district it governs. ¶ 11. Whether Cleary had the authority to enact the subject ordinance is dependent on how this Court construes competing statutes. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals found that Cleary had the authority to enact its ordinance under general police powers granted to water and/or sewer districts in Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-173 (Rev.2003). Green, 910 So.2d at 5-6. The Court of Appeals also found that the Mississippi On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law did not expressly prevent Cleary from regulating the use or maintenance of individual on-site wastewater disposal systems, despite the fact that sewer districts were not mentioned in this statutory scheme. Green, 910 So.2d at 6. The Court of Appeals further stated that enactment of Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq., did not operate to repeal Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-173, which gave Cleary the authority to protect the potable water that it supplies to its customers through regulations protecting the health of these customers. Green, 910 So.2d at 6. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs, however, point out that the State Board of Health is given authority [t]o exercise general supervision over the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of individual on-site wastewater disposal systems . . . and [t]o adopt, modify, repeal and promulgate rules and regulations regarding such systems under Miss.Code Ann. § 41-67-3(1). They argue that this grant to the Department of Health is exclusive and that the Legislature, in adopting the Mississippi Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law, preempted other agencies or political bodies from regulating these types of disposal systems. While this provision gives the Mississippi State Board of Health a general grant of power, this Court has not found any language giving the Board exclusive authority in this area, as plaintiffs contend. In fact, § 41-67-3(1)(a) says that the State Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Quality shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, which at a minimum shall clearly define the jurisdiction of each department with regard to wastewater disposal and procedures for interdepartmental interaction and cooperation. Moreover, § 41-67-3(2) allows professional engineers to provide design, construction or installation services for individual disposal systems and actually exempts such engineers from the certification requirements of § 41-67-3(1)(c). This language does not indicate the exclusive vesting of power in the Department of Health as plaintiffs allege. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs do recognize an exception to the health department's exclusive authority to regulate individual waste disposal systems in Miss.Code Ann. § 41-67-15, which states: [n]othing in this chapter shall limit the authority of a municipality or board of supervisors to adopt similar ordinances which may be, in whole or in part, more restrictive than this chapter, and in those cases the more restrictive ordinances will govern. Since the Legislature did not include sewer districts within this provision, plaintiffs argue that those districts are without power to enact ordinances that concern individual septic systems. They claim that the language here is unambiguous, making statutory interpretation unnecessary and improper. See Marx v. Broom, 632 So.2d 1315, 1318 (Miss.1994) (stating that courts cannot restrict or enlarge the meaning of an unambiguous statute). Plaintiffs seek to bolster this position by noting that water and/or sewer districts such as Cleary were specifically mentioned in another provision of the Mississippi Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law. This provision regarding temporary disposal systems states: The board may approve the installation of sewage holding tanks in districts created under Sections 19-5-151 through 19-5-207 for the purpose of providing sewage services. The district shall be required to maintain or provide for the maintenance of those holding tanks. The board shall require that residences be connected to a municipal or community sewage system when that system is available and ready to use. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-67-11(2). ¶ 14. Water and/or sewer districts were given the authority to maintain sewage holding tanks with the Board of Health's approval under § 41-67-11(2), yet omitted from § 41-67-15, which gave municipalities and boards of supervisors authority to enact ordinances that were more restrictive than those enacted by the Board of Health. Despite this omission, in the statutory scheme of Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq. does not prohibit water and/or sewer districts from regulating individual on-site wastewater systems. Though § 41-67-15 makes no mention of utility districts, it does not forbid Cleary from adopting the subject ordinance, which the Court of Appeals correctly noted. ¶ 15. In addition to the authority granted to water and/or sewer districts under § 19-5-173, Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-175 grants Cleary all the powers necessary and requisite for the accomplishment of the purpose for which such district is created and states that none of Cleary's enumerated powers shall be construed to impair or limit any general grant of power. Districts such as Cleary are authorized to do all acts necessary, proper or convenient in exercising the powers granted to them. Id. ¶ 16. The Court of Appeals correctly held that Cleary has authority under its general police power to insure the purity of the water it supplies to its customers. However, that police power is not unlimited. The Board of Health is granted a general power to regulate individual wastewater disposal systems under the Mississippi Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law which is not expressly granted to districts such as Cleary. As such, any ordinance Cleary enacts, which attempts to regulate individual wastewater disposal systems, must comply with the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Health. This principle is denoted in City of Jackson v. Mississippi State Bldg. Comm'n, 350 So.2d 63, 66 (Miss. 1977), in which this Court stated that express authority to a state agency to do a particular thing in a particular way supersedes any local or general regulation conflicting therewith. ¶ 17. The fact that the Board of Health has this general power does not necessarily mean that Cleary is without power to regulate in this area also. Both of the statutory schemes at issue here, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 19-5-151 et seq. and Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq., regulate health-related matters. As such, they can be considered in pari materia, and any ambiguities in one provision should be resolved by applying the statute consistently with other statutes dealing with the same or similar subject matter. State ex rel. Hood v. Madison County, 873 So.2d 85, 90 (Miss.2004). Stated similarly, statutes on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should, if possible, be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each. Boyles v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 794 So.2d 149, 160 (Miss.2001). With this rule of construction in mind, we find that Cleary does have authority to adopt rules similar to those in its Decentralized Wastewater Use Ordinance, but the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Health must take precedence over any conflicting provisions in the Cleary Ordinance. ¶ 18. This Court finds that the Cleary District did have authority under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 19-5-173 & -175 to enact an ordinance which would protect its water supply and that such action was not preempted by the Mississippi Individual On-Site Wastewater Disposal System Law. However, any provision of such ordinance that conflicts with rules or regulations adopted by State Board of Health, pursuant to its powers under Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-67-1 et seq., should be declared void and given no effect.