Court Opinion

ID: 9606278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:44.347152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:05.413791
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Justice.
The Pine Forest Subdivision Water System serves a subdivision of about 300 homes in Chatham County and, though privately owned, is nonetheless subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources (EPD). Four days after an oily substance contaminated the system on July 8, 1983, the director of EPD issued an emergency order to remedy the problem; he subsequently continued to monitor the progress of the required corrective measures until the water company had cleaned or replaced all of its pipes and other equipment. The residents, however, continued to experience periodic difficulties, apparently because the pipes on their private property remained contaminated. Bass and the other residents consequently brought this mandamus action to force the director to compel the water company to clean those pipes as well. In a *739related case, they also sought damages and other relief against the water company and its owners. See Smith v. Hawks, 182 Ga. App. 379 (355 SE2d 669) (1987).
The controlling issue therefore concerns the director’s statutory authority under the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (OCGA § 12-5-170 et seq.): can he legally order the water system’s owners to clean contaminated pipes located on the property of its residential consumers? The trial court, agreeing with the director’s interpretation of the statute that he had no such authority, granted him summary judgment. We affirm.
The legislative policy underlying the enactment of the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act is set out in OCGA § 12-5-171, which demonstrates a clear legislative intent to protect the health of the people of this state by controlling the public water supply. Nevertheless, we agree with the director that his mandate is limited to the public aspects of water delivery systems such that in this case, he is governed by the provisions of OCGA § 12-5-172 (11) defining a “public water system” as “. . . a system for the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals. Such term includes but is not limited to any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under the control of the operator of such system and used primarily in connection with such system, and any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control which are used primarily in connection with such syf.m” (Emphasis supplied.)
Accordingly, EPD authority is confined either to any facilities of the public water system under the operator’s control or to any collection or pretreatment storage facilities1 not under the operator’s control. Clearly, the private lines running from the service connections of the distribution facilities into the homes of the residents are not within the control of the operator,2 and consequently, the EPD is charged with no responsibility for those private lines. There was, in short, no abuse of discretion by the director, and summary judgment was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs specially, and Smith, J., who dissents.

 Neither collection nor pretreatment storage facilities is involved in this matter.

 Both parties recognize that EPD’s regulatory authority applies only to a public water system. Therefore, a construction of the definition of public water system as contained in OCGA § 12-5-172 (11) determines the outcome. It is not argued that the Act covers the water in the residents’ private property under the “cross-connection” definition, OCGA § 12-5-172 (3), which is limited to an unregulated water supply which might cause backflow or backsiphonage.