Opinion ID: 2219370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness of the Department's Interpretation

Text: The city seeks to prove the department's interpretation of the statute is not consistent with the language of Iowa Code section 422.43(11). Relief from the department's action may be granted if the department's action was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Iannone v. Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 641 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Iowa 2002). Action is arbitrary when it is taken without regard to the law or facts of the case. Dawson v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 654 N.W.2d 514, 519-20 (Iowa 2002). An abuse of discretion exists if the department action was unreasonable or lacked rationality. Iannone, 641 N.W.2d at 738. Action is unreasonable when it is clearly against reason and evidence. Dawson, 654 N.W.2d at 519. Turning to the reasonableness of the department's interpretation of sewage services, we apply the well-established rules of statutory construction. Generally, statutory words are presumed to be used in their ordinary and commonly understood sense. The city and department each emphasize different and, at first glance, incompatible definitions of the word sewage. The city advocates the term sewage services encompasses only the vile solids and liquids that pass through the city's sanitary sewers. The department contends sewage services apply to anything that flows through the sewers, including rainwater. The following discussion is helpful in determining what sewage services is meant to encompass. The primary meaning of the word sewage is that which passes through a sewer, and a secondary meaning is derived from the usual character of the contents of a sewer, and as used in that sense the word signifies the refuse and foul matter solid or liquid, which is so carried off: excreted, as well as waste, refuse or foul matter, [3] carried off in sewers and drains, whether open or closed, by water flowing therein. The words sewage and sewerage both have reference to the general drainage of a city or town by means of sewers, [4] and are applied to matter carried away in drains as well as that carried in sewers, and the terms include all kinds of drainage and water discharge. 80 C.J.S. Sewage or Sewerage-Sewer § 62, at 129 (1953) (emphasis added). See also Morgan v. City of Danbury, 67 Conn. 484, 35 A. 499, 500 (1896). Other jurisdictions have defined sewage as the general drainage of a city or town by means of sewer. City of Valparaiso v. Parker, 148 Ind. 379, 47 N.E. 330, 331 (1897); accord Citrano v. Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 58 Mass. App.Ct. 906, 788 N.E.2d 975, 976 (2003); Morgan, 35 A. at 500. To hinge the proper definition of sewage services on the word sewage alone is to ignore the other statutory term. When the legislature used the word services it intended for the statute to apply to services rendered via the municipality's sewer system. A sewer is defined as an artificial, usually subterranean, conduit to carry off water and certain waste matter, as (a) surface water due to rainfall; (b) household waste, as slops waste water from sinks, baths, etc., and excreta consisting of urine, feces; (c) waste water from industrial works. 80 C.J.S. Sewage or Sewerage Sewer § 62, at 131. Given these commonly understood meanings of the words sewage and sewer the department's act in defining sewage services to include the service of collecting rainwater was reasonable. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 70126.72(1)( a ). Nothing in the statute suggests the legislature intended to limit such services, based on content, or to restrict sewage services to the collection of sanitary sewage. Our determination is reinforced by an examination of legislative intent. Certain code provisions reveal the legislature's intent in other chapters to specify a more specific type of sewage services. For example, Iowa Code section 362.2(6) (1997) defines city utility in part as all or part of a ... sanitary sewage system. Iowa Code section 388.2 (1997) also refers to the existence of sanitary sewage. When the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 422.23(11), it did not use the more narrow term sanitary sewage. It is clear, on other occasions, the legislature has chosen to restrict the definition of sewage to sanitary sewage. The legislature's use of the narrow definition indicates its awareness of the difference between sanitary sewage and sewage services. See, e.g., Iowa Code §§ 384.84(2)( a ) (1997) (referring to services of sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, sewage treatment, solid waste collection, water, solid waste disposal), 384.84(3)( a ) (1997) (referring to same services as listed in section 384.84(2)( a )). In this case, the legislature used the broad term sewage services, indicating its intent to apply the statute using the more expansive definition of sewage. Because the legislature did not specifically limit the meaning of the term, the department acted reasonably in defining sewage services to include that which flows through both the sanitary and storm sewers. The department's decision to define sewage in a broad manner is consistent with Iowa Code section 422.43(11) and legislative intent. Finally, we note the department promulgated its administrative rule defining sewage services in 1992. The legislature has not amended Iowa Code section 422.43(11) since the department enacted the Iowa Administrative Code rule 70126.72(1)( a ). We consider the legislature's inaction as a tacit approval of the department's action. 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 92 at 116 (1994). See also Drahaus v. State, 584 N.W.2d 270, 276 (Iowa 1998) (legislature's failure to amend a statute in response to a particular interpretation of the statute announced by the court is presumed that the legislature has acquiesced in that interpretation). The fact that this administrative rule has been in effect for eleven years strongly cautions against finding the rule invalid.