Can the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District pay half the cost of a county guardrail repair to protect its existing water and sewer lines?
Plain-English summary
The Pearl River Valley Water Supply District manages Ross Barnett Reservoir and roughly 50,000 surrounding acres in central Mississippi. Two roads serve the area: Spillway Road (the District maintains the dam/spillway portion; Rankin County maintains the rest) and Northshore Causeway (Rankin County maintains entirely). Underneath Northshore Causeway run District-owned utility lines: two 10-inch water mains and two high-pressure sewer force mains, in place since about 1988.
Damaged guardrails on Northshore Causeway needed repair. Rankin County offered two options. Option 1: replace the guardrails with concrete barriers extended further from the bridge plus impact attenuators, total $209,987, with the County asking the District to pay half ($104,993.50). Option 2: cheaper repair using like-for-like materials, with significant risk of damaging the District's utility lines, requiring expensive line relocation (estimated above $1 million for the District). The District understandably preferred Option 1 and asked the AG whether it had the authority to enter a 50/50 cost-share agreement with the County.
The AG's answer was yes. Section 51-9-121(e) gives the District authority to acquire, maintain, use, and operate property within the project area necessary for the project. Subsection (n) authorizes contracts and instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. Subsection (s) specifically authorizes contracts with municipalities, corporations, districts, public agencies, and political subdivisions for services, facilities, or commodities the District may provide. Section 51-9-153 authorizes the District "to act jointly with political subdivisions of the state ... in the performance of the purposes and services authorized in this article, upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the directors." And § 51-9-155 says other laws shall not limit or restrict the powers granted by this article (and the District is not subject to Public Service Commission control).
The District has to make a factual determination on its minutes that the cost-share is necessary for the performance of its statutory purposes. With that determination, the contract is authorized. The economics are obvious: $104,993.50 for cost-share is much less than $1,000,000+ for line relocation, and the cost-share also protects pedestrian/bicycle trails and avoids relocating other utilities.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Background and statutory framework
The Pearl River Valley Water Supply District is created under §§ 51-9-101 et seq. and operates Ross Barnett Reservoir and the surrounding project area. The relevant authority is in Title 51, Chapter 9, Article 3.
Section 51-9-121 lists the District's enumerated powers. Three are central:
51-9-121(e): authority to acquire and "maintain, use, and operate all property of any kind, real, personal, or mixed, or any interest therein within the project area, within or without the boundaries of the district, necessary for the project and convenient to the exercise of the powers, rights, privileges, and functions conferred upon the district."
51-9-121(n): authority to "make contracts and to execute instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers, rights, privileges, and functions" conferred upon the District.
51-9-121(s): authority to "enter into contracts with municipalities, corporations, districts, public agencies, political subdivisions of any kind, and others for any services, facilities or commodities that the project may provide." This subsection has additional provisions about water-supply and water-distribution contracts, but the operative grant of authority is broad.
Section 51-9-153 specifically blesses joint action: the District is authorized "to act jointly with political subdivisions of the state ... in the performance of the purposes and services authorized in this article, upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the directors."
Section 51-9-155 protects the District's authority from collateral statutes: "The provisions of any other law, general, special or local, except as provided in this article, shall not limit or restrict the powers granted by this article. The water supply district herein provided for shall not be subject to regulation or control by the public service commission."
Putting these together: the District has very broad authority to contract with political subdivisions for project-related work. The factual determination is what carries the legal weight: the District has to find that the contract serves its statutory purposes (protecting water and sewer infrastructure within the project area) and document the finding.
Common questions
Q: Does the cost-share have to be exactly 50/50?
A: No. The opinion does not impose a particular split. The District negotiates with the County. The split should be reasonable in light of each party's interests, but neither the statute nor the AG mandates equal sharing.
Q: What if the District concluded that the line-relocation alternative was actually cheaper?
A: The cost-effectiveness is part of the factual basis for the determination. The District has to identify why the proposed contract is in its best interests, which usually means showing the alternative is more expensive or worse. Documentation matters.
Q: Could the District build, rather than just contribute toward, the safer guardrail option itself?
A: The opinion does not address that. Roads on Northshore Causeway are maintained by Rankin County, so direct construction by the District would raise jurisdictional questions. Cost-share with the County avoids that problem.
Q: Does the District need to follow public bidding rules for the cost-share contract?
A: The opinion does not address public bidding directly. The contract is between two governmental entities, which often falls outside competitive bidding requirements. The County's underlying procurement of the construction work, however, would be subject to the County's bidding rules.
Q: Can other Mississippi water supply districts use the same authority?
A: Districts created under different enabling statutes have different powers. The reasoning translates well, but the actual statutory language has to be checked. Section 51-9-121's mix of (n), (s), and § 51-9-153 is what makes the cost-share clearly authorized for the Pearl River Valley District.
What this means for you
For the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District: Document the cost-share determination on the directors' minutes. Identify the District's interests served (protection of water and sewer lines, avoidance of expensive relocation, preservation of bicycle/pedestrian trails) and the alternative costs avoided. Contracts of this kind are clearly within authority once the determination is made.
For other water supply districts: Check your enabling statute for the equivalent of §§ 51-9-121(n), (s) and 51-9-153. Most water supply districts have similarly broad authority to contract with political subdivisions for purposes within their statutory missions.
For counties working with water supply districts: When a county project would damage or threaten district infrastructure, propose cost-share negotiations early. Districts with broad statutory authority can usually find a path to participate.
For utility managers in any setting: Document the alternative costs you would face if a county or municipal project were not modified to protect your infrastructure. That documentation supports the joint-action determination.
For attorneys advising special districts: Build a checklist that walks through enabling-act authority, joint-action authority, and the factual determination requirement. Section 51-9-155-style "no other law shall limit" provisions strengthen the district's hand.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 51-9-121 (Pearl River Valley Water Supply District powers)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 51-9-153 (joint action with political subdivisions)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 51-9-155 (protection of district powers)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/J.Sigman_January-31-2020-Pearl-River-Valley-Water-Supply-District.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPINIONS DIVISION
January 31, 2020
John G. Sigman, Executive Director
Pearl River Valley Water Supply District
Post Office Box 2180
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158
Re: Pearl River Valley Water Supply District
Dear Mr. Sigman:
Attorney General Lynn Fitch has received your opinion request and has assigned it to me for research and reply.
Issue Presented
In your request, you provide:
As you are aware, the District encompasses the Ross Barnett Reservoir and the Reservoir Project Area which encompasses approximately fifty thousand (50,000) acres, more or less, with thirty-three thousand (33,000) of those acres being the Reservoir itself. Much of the acreage that is not inundated is leased by the State of Mississippi to both residential and commercial lessees. The Ross Barnett Project Reservoir area is serviced by two (2) main roads, Spillway Road, which is maintained by the District over the Reservoir dam and its spillway and by Rankin County off the dam, as well as Northshore Causeway, which is maintained entirely by Rankin County.
The District has been approached with proposals to repair certain portions of the Northshore Parkway, one of which could be possibly prohibitively expensive for the District.
Rankin County has approached the District regarding participation in a project to renovate and repair guardrails on Northshore Causeway, which have been damaged by vehicular traffic. The first option proposed by Rankin County would prevent moving existing utilities on both sides of Northshore Causeway and would specifically protect bicycle and pedestrian trails constructed by the District which lay next to the Causeway. The project envisioned by Rankin County will involve removing all four (4) existing guardrails that separate vehicular traffic on Northshore Causeway from the aforementioned bicycle/pedestrian trail. The county's proposal would extend the existing concrete barriers away from the bridge approximately one hundred feet (100') on all four (4) corners and install more significant vehicle impact attenuators at the end of the proposed concrete guardrail extensions.
In addition to other utilities adjacent to Northshore Causeway, the District has four (4) lines in total, two (2) water and two (2) sewer lines on either side of the Northshore Causeway being ten-inch (10") water mains on one side of the Causeway, and a high-pressure sewer force mains on the other. Both the existing water and sewer lines are owned by the District and have been in place on Northshore Parkway since approximately 1988.
Rankin County has informed the District that the first option is the better option in terms of safety and liability exposure for the County and the District, but it is not the only option. The county could opt for repairing the guardrails with like materials, components, and location, but not without significantly risking damage to the existing ten-inch (10") water mains and force sewer mains, thereby damaging State property of the District or requesting the District move those sewer lines. To that end, the county has requested the District's joint participation in constructing the more expensive impact attenuator option which would not necessitate damage or moving the sewer and water lines currently in place and would not impact the bicycle and pedestrian trails. As of this writing, Rankin County has estimated the cost of the vehicular attenuator guardrails on all four (4) corners to be Two Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars ($209,987.00). They have requested joint participation with the District paying fifty percent (50%) of that cost or One Hundred Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars and Fifty Cents ($104,993.50). The District estimates that if it did not participate in the project with Rankin County that moving the water line and sewer line would cost well in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
Citing the District's authority in Sections 51-9-121, 51-9-153, and 51-9-155 of the Mississippi Code, you ask: "may the District participate with Rankin County, Mississippi and enter into an Agreement with the county to pay fifty percent (50%) of the proposed costs of the guardrail repair project?"
Response
The District is specifically authorized to maintain the real property within the project area and to contract with political subdivisions to carry out its statutory obligations. Thus, if the District makes the factual determination that the repairs are necessary for the performance of the purposes and services authorized in Title 51 Chapter 9, Article 3, of the Mississippi Code, it has the authority to contract with the County for said repairs.
Applicable Law and Discussion
As you note in your request, Section 51-9-121 authorizes the District:
(e) To acquire by purchase, lease, gift, or in any other manner (otherwise than by condemnation) and to maintain, use, and operate all property of any kind, real, personal, or mixed, or any interest therein within the project area, within or without the boundaries of the district, necessary for the project and convenient to the exercise of the powers, rights, privileges, and functions conferred upon the district by this article.
(n) To make contracts and to execute instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers, rights, privileges, and functions conferred upon it by this article.
(s) To enter into contracts with municipalities, corporations, districts, public agencies, political subdivisions of any kind, and others for any services, facilities or commodities that the project may provide. The district is also authorized to contract with any municipality, corporation, or public agency for the rental, leasing, purchase, or operation of the water production, water filtration or purification, water supply and distributing facilities of the municipality, corporation, or public agency upon such consideration as the district and such entity may agree. Any such contract may be upon any terms and for any time as the parties may agree, and it may provide that it shall continue in effect until bonds specified therein and refunding bonds issued in lieu of these bonds are paid. Any contract with any political subdivision shall be binding upon said political subdivision according to its terms, and any municipalities or other political subdivisions shall have the power to enter into such contracts as in the discretion of the governing authorities thereof would be to the best interest of the people of the municipality or other political subdivision. These contracts may include, within the discretion of the governing authorities, a pledge of the full faith and credit of the political subdivisions for the performance thereof.
Section 51-9-153 authorizes the District "to act jointly with political subdivisions of the state ... in the performance of the purposes and services authorized in this article, upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the directors." According to Section 51-9-155: "The provisions of any other law, general, special or local, except as provided in this article, shall not limit or restrict the powers granted by this article. The water supply district herein provided for shall not be subject to regulation or control by the public service commission."
If we may be of further service, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Beebe Garrard
Special Assistant Attorney General