Opinion ID: 2299886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interplay Between Statutes

Text: [¶ 17] Trask next contends that the Commission erred in applying section 6109 instead of the Dam Abandonment Act exclusively. Trask argues that a conflict exists between the two statutes and that the conflict is particularly evident with respect to the right of first refusal that is required by section 6109 but not by the Dam Abandonment Act. He contends that, because of the conflict, the Commission should have applied the rule of statutory construction that the provisions of a more specific statute will be given precedence over a more general statute. See South Portland Civil Service Comm'n v. City of South Portland, 667 A.2d 599, 601 (Me.1995) (citation omitted). [¶ 18] Contrary to Trask's contention, however, the Dam Abandonment Act is not necessarily more specific than section 6109. There are differences, but the two statutes need not be read as mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. Although conflicting in some respects, the provisions can be read in harmony, because they serve two distinct purposes. We consider `the whole statutory scheme of which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved.' South Portland Civil Service Comm'n v. City of South Portland, 667 A.2d 599, 601 (Me.1995) (citation omitted). We avoid a construction that leads to inconsistency between two statutes. Id. (citation omitted). Further, [a]mong competing interpretations of a statute, we adopt the interpretation that avoids a result adverse to the public interest. Id. (citation omitted). [¶ 19] The Dam Abandonment Act was enacted in 1996. The purpose of the Act was to provide[] a formal process through which a dam owner may seek a new owner for the dam and provide[] for the issuance of a water release order to the current dam owner if a new owner can not be located for the dam. Statement of Fact, Comm. Amend. A to L.D. 646, No. S-484 (117th Legis.1996). The Act provides a process for a dam owner to abandon the dam if the owner cannot find a new owner to operate the dam, with the preference being to locate a new owner. The Act provides that the owner file a petition for release from dam ownership or water-level maintenance and, within 180 days of filing that petition, the owner must consult certain persons and entities to determine whether they wish to assume ownership of the dam. See 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 901, 902 (Pamph.1998). [4] Those persons and entities are limited to the following: A. Individuals and groups of persons, such as lake associations, who own property abutting the dam site, the water impounded by the dam or the waterway immediately downstream from the dam; B. The Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commissioner of Conservation and the Director of the Maine Emergency Management Agency; C. The municipal officers of any municipality and the county commissioners of any unorganized area in which the dam or impoundment is located; and D. Representatives of the tribal governments of Indian tribes or nations in whose territory a dam or impoundment is located. 38 M.R.S.A. § 902(3) (Pamph.1998). [¶ 20] The Act then provides that if during that 180-day period, after consulting with these persons and entities and following the requisite procedures, the owner cannot locate a new owner to continue to operate the dam, the Department of Environmental Protection will notify the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Department of Conservation and the Maine Emergency Management Agency to assess the public value of the dam and those agencies will report back to the DEP stating whether the best interest of the public requires any of them to assume ownership of the dam. See 38 M.R.S.A. § 903 (Pamph.1998). If not, then the DEP will issue a notice and order to the dam owner to release the water from the dam. See 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 904, 905 (Pamph.1998). The Act does not contain any procedure if a person other than those required to be consulted pursuant to section 902 makes an offer or if more than one party expresses an interest in assuming the property within the 180-day period. The Act also does not provide for the DEP to approve the new owner of the Dam. As in this case, if a new owner is located, the petition for abandonment may be withdrawn. [¶ 21] Section 6109, on the other hand, deals with the situation in which a new owner is found and regulates the sale or transfer of water resource land by a consumer-owned water utility to any person or entity. It provides for a right of first refusal to a municipality in order to protect the public interest in the property. Thus, the Commission determined that a reasonable construction of the statutes would provide for the following procedure when a consumer-owned water utility files a petition to abandon a dam and a prospective owner is located: the dam owner follows the procedures set forth in the Dam Abandonment Act until such time as a prospective buyer is located and from that point forward section 6109 and the implementing rule applies. This construction gives effect to all statutory provisions and advances the purposes of both statutes. The Commission's interpretation is consistent with the purposes of both statutes, allows for both statutes to be read harmoniously, and avoids a result adverse to the public interest. We find no error. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.