Can a Louisiana town refund years of sewer fees when a customer's property was connected to a private septic tank?

Plain-English summary

A Jena property owner paid the town's flat sewer fee for years. After sewage leaked on her property in 2023, she discovered that the property was connected to a private septic tank rather than the town sewer system. The town stopped future sewer charges. She sought a refund for past payments, possibly dating back to her 2001 purchase of the property.

The attorney general said the town could not make that refund on the facts presented. It had no record that the customer asked to end sewer service or notified the town of a disconnection, and no record showed when the property stopped using the system. Without documentation that the town was at fault for the disputed charges, the office viewed a refund as an unconstitutional donation of public funds.

The opinion allowed a narrower possibility. If the town or customer found a record of a request to disconnect or notice that the property was no longer connected, and the town kept charging after failing to act, the town could refund fees paid since that request, provided the claim had not prescribed.

What this means for you

Town utility and billing officials

The opinion rejected a refund based only on the property's present septic connection. The town's flat sewer fee was not metered, and the record did not establish when service had ended or show a request to stop billing. The office treated proof of town fault as necessary to refund the disputed payments.

Customers disputing sewer fees

The opinion identified a request or notice to the town as the fact that could change the answer. If a record showed the customer had asked for disconnection or said the property was no longer connected, and the town failed to stop the charge, the opinion said a refund could cover payments from that date, subject to prescription.

Local government attorneys

The opinion applied the Louisiana constitutional bar on gratuitous use of public funds to sewer-bill adjustments. It relied on earlier utility-billing opinions and distinguished a correction of charges caused by the town's error from forgiving charges without proof of that error.

Common questions

Q: Does a septic-tank connection automatically entitle a Jena customer to a sewer-fee refund?
A: No. The opinion said the town had no record of when the property stopped using its sewer system or of a request to end service, so it could not refund prior fees absent proof of its own error.

Q: Could the town refund charges if it finds an old disconnection request?
A: Yes, if the record shows a request or notice and the town failed to disconnect or stop billing. The opinion limited any refund to payments made since that request and to claims that had not prescribed.

Q: Why could the town stop future charges but not simply repay all past ones?
A: The town removed the fee from later bills after learning of the septic connection. For earlier bills, the opinion said it lacked evidence of when the connection ended or that the town caused the mistaken charges.

Q: Did the opinion determine when the property was disconnected?
A: No. It said neither the flat-rate billing record nor the materials supplied established when the property ceased using the town system.

Background and statutory framework

The customer applied for town water and sewer service in 2001. After discovering a private septic connection in July 2023, she requested a refund. The town said it had no record of a request to disconnect or of the property's change to a septic tank. It did remove the sewer fee from future bills.

The opinion read La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A) as barring a public entity from gratuitously giving away public funds. Citing its earlier utility-bill opinions, the office said a town could not reduce or refund charges absent its own error. It also noted that any refund supported by a documented town error would be subject to the prescription rule discussed in the opinion.

Citations and references

• La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A) (public-funds restriction)
• La. CC. art. 3494 (prescription, as cited in the opinion's footnote)
• La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 13-0166 (earlier waterworks-district refund opinion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/24-0071

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
DERARTMENT OF JUST[C’E
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE, LA
70804-9005

Liz MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 6, 2024
OPINION 24-0071

Honorable LaDawn C. Edwards
Mayor
90-A-i Public Funds & Contracts

Town of Jena
La. Const. art. VII, § 14
P.O. Box 26
La. CC. art. 3494

Jena, Louisiana 71 342
The Town of Jena may not refund payments for sewage
service absent an error on the part of the Town.

Dear Mayor Edwards:

You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General’s office concerning a potential refund of sewage payments made by a customer of the Town of Jena’s (“Town”) water and sewer system. Your request has been assigned to me for research and reply.

Your request indicates that the customer purchased property within the Town limits in 2001 and applied to the Town for both water and sewage service to the property. The Town connected the customer to the Town’s water and sewage, and the customer began paying for water and sewage service.

In July of 2023, the customer experienced sewage leakage on her property and ultimately realized that her property was no longer connected to the Town’s sewer system. Instead, her property was connected to a private septic tank.

The customer brought this to the Town’s attention, and the Town promptly removed the sewer usage fee from the customer’s utility bill for future billing periods. The customer has now requested a refund for prior years of service. While it is unclear which payments or for what period of time the customer is seeking a refund, the Town presumes that the customer intends the request to extend back to the date she originally acquired the property in 2001.

You state that the Town does not have any records indicating that the customer requested that the property be disconnected from the sewer system or that this property had begun using a private septic tank. Based on the above facts, you would like to know whether the Town may issue a refund to the property owner for prior sewer usage fees. For the following reasons, the Town may not refund the customer absent error on the part of the Town.

Louisiana. Const. Article VII, § 14(A) prohibits donations by public entities. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that this constitutional provision “is violated when public funds or

Page 2

_______

OPINION 24-0071
Honorable LaDawn C. Edwards
Page 2
property are gratuitously alienated” Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Board of the City of Gonzales, Louisiana, Inc. v. All Taxpayers, Property Owners, Citizens of the City of Gonzales, et a!., 2005-2298 (La. 9/6/06), 938 So. 2d I I 20 (the “Cabela’s” ,

case). In prior opinions regarding utility bills, and more specifically sewer or water bills, our office has consistently opined that in order to comply with La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A), a public entity has no authority to set-aside, reduce, or otherwise forgive a debt owed to a public Furthermore, a public entity may not set-aside, reduce or adjust downward a particular resident’s utility bill absent error on the part of the public entity.2 In La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 13-0166, this office concluded that a waterworks district may not refund payments that a customer alleged were erroneously charged by the district unless the error was, in fact, the fault of the district. However, if the district were able to find a record of such a request, and the failure to turn off the meters as requested was the sole fault of the district, then the district could refund any payments made since the date ofthe request for termination of service by the customer. In this instance, the Town has no record of any request or notice by the customer to discontinue sewer service. We understand that the customer has produced no such documentation. The Town issues a flat-rate fee for sewer usage; sewer usage is not metered. Thus, the Town has no record that would enable it to determine when this particular property disconnected from the Town’s sewer system. Absent documentation that the Town was at fault for the contested sewer charges, a refund of any sewer usage fees paid by the customer would in our view violate La. Const. art. VII, §14(A). Nonetheless, if the Town or customer locates a record of a request to disconnect from the Town’s sewer system or a notice that the property was no longer connected to the Town’s sewer system, and the Town failed to disconnect and/or cease to issue sewer usage fees on the property, the Town may refund any sewer usage fee payments made since the date ofthe request, provided the claim has not prescribed.3 We hope that this opinion has adequately addressed the legal issues you have raised. If our office can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

LIZ MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

J21stin H. Lester
(Assistant Attorney General

LM:jhl

1 See, e.g. La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 18-0052, 13-01 92, 13-0079, and 10-0287. 2 See, e.g. La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 18-0052, 15-0057, 14-0055, and 13-0166.
The prescriptive period for actions on open accounts is three years. La. cc. art. 3494(4).