Salt Lake County v. Holliday Water Co.

• Citation: 2010 UT 45,234 P.3d 1105
• Decision Date: 11 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. 20080522.,20080522.
• Parties: SALT LAKE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee,v.HOLLIDAY WATER COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Utah

234 P.3d 1105

2010 UT 45

SALT LAKE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee,v.HOLLIDAY WATER COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20080522.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 11, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lohra L. Miller, T.J. Tsakalos, Craig W. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Wallace T. Boyack, Paul H. Ashton, Salt Lake City, for defendant.

NEHRING, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Holliday Water Company appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Salt Lake County, which requires Holliday Water to fluoridate its water supply in compliance with Salt Lake Valley Health Department's Regulation 33 (as amended).

¶ 2 While these proceedings were pending, the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 29, amending Utah Code section 19-4-111 to exempt “corporate public water systems” from having to comply with Regulation 33. Holliday Water, contending it is a corporate public water system as defined by the new statute, filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, arguing that the 2009 amendments moot this appeal.

¶ 3 Because we find that the 2009 amendments to section 19-4-111 moot this case, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. However, we also hold that to the extent Salt Lake County and Holliday Water entered an enforceable contract before the 2009 amendments took effect, the 2009 amendments will not apply retroactively to displace the terms of that contract.

BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The Utah Safe Drinking Water Act, originally passed in 1953, prohibits the addition or removal of fluorine ¹ to “public water supplies, whether state, county, municipal, or district,” unless a majority of voters in the affected area vote in favor of such an action in an election. See Utah Code Ann. § 19-4-111(2)(a) (Supp.2009).

¶ 5 In November 2000, Salt Lake County held a general election that included a ballot question regarding whether fluoride should be added to public water systems in Salt Lake County. A majority of registered voters approved the ballot initiative, thus requiring the addition of fluoride to the public water systems in Salt Lake County. After the vote, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department drafted Regulation 33, which mandated fluoridation of all “regulated public water systems” in Salt Lake County by October 1, 2003. The Salt Lake Valley Board of Health subsequently amended Regulation 33 in 2005 to exempt “functionally separate” water systems from the fluoridation requirement.

¶ 6 Holliday Water Company, a registered Utah corporation in Salt Lake County, declared itself to be a functionally separate water system and exempt from Regulation 33, as amended. In response, Salt Lake County filed a complaint against Holliday Water seeking a declaratory judgment ruling that due to its interconnections with Salt Lake City, Holliday Water is not a functionally separate water system and is required to comply with Regulation 33.

¶ 7 Holliday Water filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking a declaration that it is a functionally separate water system under the amended regulation. Salt Lake County moved for summary judgment. At the same time, Holliday Water filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment asserting Utah Code section 19-4-111 and Regulation 33 do not apply to it.

¶ 8 In a memorandum decision, the district court granted Salt Lake County's motion for summary judgment and denied Holliday Water's motions. The district court found that under the plain language of the statute, along with Regulation 33, Holliday Water is not functionally separate because it is a public system that has interconnections with Salt Lake City, it is not independent of any other water system, and it provides water service to retail customers.

¶ 9 Holliday Water appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Salt Lake County and the denial of Holliday Water's Motion for Declaratory Judgment on the application of Utah Code section 19-4-111.

¶ 10 While these proceedings were pending before our court and in response to the lobbying efforts of Holliday Water, the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 29, amending section 19-4-111 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to expressly exempt from compulsory fluoridation those “corporate public water systems” whose shareholders oppose adding the chemical. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, ch. 371 § 1, 2009 Utah Laws 2029-30. Under the amended statute, a corporate public water system is defined as “a public water system that is owned by a corporation engaged in distributing water only to its shareholders.” Utah Code Ann. § 19-4-111(1)(a).

¶ 11 In response to the new legislation and pursuant to rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, Holliday Water filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, arguing that because it is a corporate public water system as defined in the new version of the statute, Salt Lake County has no authority to compel Holliday Water to fluoridate its water supply.

¶ 12 Salt Lake County filed a response to Holliday Water's Notice of Suggestion of Mootness arguing, among other things, that Senate Bill 29 is not retroactive and does not apply to this case.

¶ 13 We called for supplemental briefing on the mootness issue. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(j) (2009).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 14 We review a summary judgment determination “for correctness, granting no deference to the [district] court's legal conclusions.” Hansen v. Am. Online, Inc., 2004 UT 62, ¶ 6, 96 P.3d 950. “[W]e determine only whether the [district] court erred in applying the governing law and whether the [district] court correctly held that there were no disputed issues of material fact.” Kouris v. Utah Highway Patrol, 2003 UT 19, ¶ 5, 70 P.3d 72.

¶ 15 “An appeal is moot if during the pendency of the appeal circumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated, thereby rendering the relief requested impossible or of no legal effect.” State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, ¶ 12, 214 P.3d 104 (internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

¶ 16 Although the parties characterize their arguments in several ways, this appeal concerns one central question: Is Holliday Water required to add fluoride to its water supply? To answer this question, we must resolve three subsidiary issues: (1) Does Senate Bill 29, which amended Utah Code section 19-4-111 to exempt “corporate public water systems” from the fluoridation requirement, apply to this appeal? (2) If Senate Bill 29 does apply, is Holliday Water a “corporate public water system” as defined by the amended statute, and thus statutorily exempt from the fluoridation requirement? ² (3) If Holliday Water qualifies for the “corporate public water system” exemption, could Holliday Water still be required to fluoridate its water supply under the terms of a contract entered into before the amendments were passed?

¶ 17 We conclude that Senate Bill 29 applies to this appeal and Holliday Water meets the definition of a “corporate public water system” under Utah Code section 19-4-111, as amended. Although this means Holliday Water has no statutory obligation to fluoridate its water supply, we also hold that to the extent Holliday Water entered into an enforceable contract with Salt Lake County before the statute was amended, Holliday Water may still be bound to comply with that contract's terms.

I. SENATE BILL 29 APPLIES TO THIS APPEAL

¶ 18 A “[t]hreshold question[ ] in any case on appeal [is] whether there is an actual controversy.” State v. Lane, 2009 UT 35, ¶ 15, 212 P.3d 529. Thus, the first question we must answer is whether Senate Bill 29, which amended Utah Code section 19-4-111 to add an exemption for corporate public water systems, applies to this appeal.³

¶ 19 Largely as a result of Holliday Water's lobbying efforts, Utah Code section 19-4-111 was amended in the 2009 Utah State Legislative session. See Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, ch. 371 § 1, 2009 Utah Laws 2029-30. Holliday Water contends that the new amendments to Utah Code section 19-4-111 apply to this appeal and moot the controversy between the parties.

¶ 20 Salt Lake County disagrees, arguing the amended section 19-4-111 does not moot this appeal because it does not apply retroactively to obligations that existed before the legislative amendments were passed. Thus, according to Salt Lake County, the prior version of the statute applies, and under that language, a controversy still remains.

¶ 21 We agree with Holliday Water on this point. “The burden of persuading the court that an issue is moot ‘lies with the party asserting mootness.’ ” See Cedar Mountain Envtl. Inc. v. Tooele County, 2009 UT 48, ¶ 26, 214 P.3d 95 (Durrant, J., dissenting) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). “[M]ootness can be determined by facts that change or develop as the suit is pending.” Id. Indeed, “[l]egislation can often moot a civil case, even where the legislation passes after the events have transpired in the case.” Salt Lake City v. Tax Comm'n, 813 P.2d 1174, 1177 (Utah 1991); see also Berning v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 990 F.2d 272, 277 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801)) (recognizing the Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the principle that Congress may impose new legal rules to pending cases).

¶ 22 We find that Holliday Water has met its burden to demonstrate mootness. Although Salt Lake County is correct that the 2009 amendments to Utah Code section 19-4-111 do not apply retroactively and thus cannot alter contractual rights that existed before their enactment ( see infra Part III), Utah Code section 19-4-111 is the current law, and it prospectively governs the obligations of water companies to add fluoride to their water supplies. The 2009 amended version of this section pro...