MS 2022-11-L-Childress-October-31-2022-Municipal-Authority-to-Terminate-Water-for-Nonpaymen October 31, 2022

Can a Mississippi town shut off water service from another utility to collect on its own sewer bill?

Short answer: No. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-23(e), a Mississippi municipality can discontinue services for nonpayment, but only services the municipality itself provides. The Town of Flora does not own the water service, so it has no authority to terminate it for unpaid sewer charges.

Disclaimer: This is an official Mississippi Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Mississippi attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The Town of Flora supplied sewer service to the Churchill Park Subdivision, which sits outside Flora's municipal limits. The water came from a separate utility, the West Madison Utility District. Flora wanted to know whether it could turn off Churchill Park residents' water (water it did not own) to collect unpaid sewer bills.

The AG: no. § 21-27-23(e) lets a municipality "discontinue any or all of the services upon any failure to promptly pay the charges fixed for the services." The 2009 Greenlee opinion read that authority as "specific to the unpaid service provided." Flora supplies sewer; Flora can shut off sewer for nonpayment of sewer. Flora does not supply the water; another district does. Flora has no authority to reach into the other district's service to enforce its own bill.

The AG noted two more constructive points. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality may have raised its own concerns about shutting off sewer service without simultaneously shutting off water (sewer-only termination can create health and safety problems with on-site septic, plumbing, and disposal). A direct conversation with MDEQ may yield workable solutions, including reconnecting some homes to septic tanks, as Flora's predecessor mayor noted in a 2004 AG request. An interlocal agreement with the utility district to enforce sewer payment, mentioned in the 2012 Jacks opinion, would not be unusual.

The opinion is short and tightly drawn. It does not address whether the town could terminate sewer service alone (which raises MDEQ concerns) or what an interlocal agreement should look like. Those are next steps for the town.

What this means for you

If you are a Mississippi mayor or city council member dealing with delinquent extraterritorial sewer customers

You cannot shut off water that another utility supplies. Two paths forward: (1) terminate the sewer service you do supply, but coordinate with MDEQ to ensure the public-health implications are handled (perhaps by routing customers back to septic with health-department approval), or (2) enter an interlocal agreement with the water utility under the Mississippi Interlocal Cooperation Act so the water utility will shut off water on your behalf when sewer is delinquent.

If you are a Mississippi utility district manager

Your district owns the water service. A neighboring municipality cannot direct you to terminate water for its own enforcement purposes. But you can enter into an interlocal agreement that authorizes you to do so, on terms you negotiate. Many such agreements exist around Mississippi.

If you live in an extraterritorial subdivision

The legal mechanics matter for your day-to-day. If your sewer is from one entity and your water is from another, only each entity can disconnect its own service. If you are receiving threatening notices about water disconnection from your sewer provider, those may exceed the provider's authority unless an interlocal agreement is in place.

If you are a city attorney advising on collection mechanisms

The clean fix is the interlocal agreement. Negotiate the terms with the water utility, get both governing boards to ratify, and document the disconnection-for-nonpayment trigger. The 2012 Jacks AG opinion supports this structure as routine.

If you work with MDEQ

The Childress request hints at an MDEQ-relayed concern about sewer-only shut-offs. As the regulator with jurisdiction over wastewater discharge and on-site sewage, MDEQ's input on enforcement strategies for extraterritorial sewer is essential. Engage early.

Common questions

Q: What does § 21-27-23(e) actually let a municipality do?
A: Establish, maintain, and collect rates for the facilities and services it offers, and discontinue "any or all of the services upon any failure to promptly pay the charges fixed for the services." The authority is service-specific. The municipality cannot reach beyond what it provides.

Q: Can a Mississippi municipality shut off only sewer for nonpayment?
A: It has the authority under § 21-27-23(e). Whether it should, given on-site sewage and health concerns, is the MDEQ piece. Sewer-only shut-offs can create unsafe conditions; some jurisdictions avoid them.

Q: What is an interlocal agreement?
A: A formal cooperative agreement between two or more public entities under Miss. Code Ann. § 17-13-1 et seq. (the Interlocal Cooperation Act). It can spell out duties, payments, and enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions. The 2012 Jacks AG opinion specifically addressed sewer-payment-enforcement interlocal agreements.

Q: Could the customer just be billed and sued for the unpaid sewer?
A: Yes. Litigation is always available. It is slow and costly but does not require any other utility's cooperation.

Q: What if the home was originally on septic?
A: That is the option Flora's predecessor mayor noted in 2004. If a home can be reconnected to an existing or new septic system with health-department approval, that resolves the dependency on the city's sewer service.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi cities have utility authority under Title 21, Chapter 27. § 21-27-11(b) defines what a "utility system" is. § 21-27-23(e) is the operational authority on rates and service termination. § 21-27-39 lets municipalities provide utility services up to five miles outside corporate limits.

The structural fact in this opinion is that Flora's sewer authority extends beyond the city limits (under § 21-27-39), but its termination authority does not extend to services it does not provide. The AG's prior opinions on the topic are consistent: service-by-service authority, not bundled.

The Interlocal Cooperation Act (§§ 17-13-1 et seq.) provides the legal framework for the most practical fix: a cooperative agreement that pools authority across the city and the utility district.

Citations

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-11(b) (utility system definition)
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-23(e) (rates and service termination)
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-39 (extraterritorial service up to five miles)
MS AG Op., Greenlee (Apr. 3, 2009) (termination authority specific to unpaid service)
MS AG Op., Richardson (Feb. 2, 2004) (Flora's prior request; option to reconnect homes to septic)
MS AG Op., Jacks (Mar. 30, 2012) (interlocal agreement for sewer-payment enforcement is normal)

Source

Original opinion text

October 31, 2022
The Honorable Leslie Childress
Mayor, Town of Flora
Post Office Box 218
Flora, Mississippi 39071
Re:

Municipal Authority to Terminate Water for Nonpayment of Municipal
Sewer Service

Dear Mayor Childress:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
According to your request, the Town of Flora ("Town") provides sewer service to the residents of
the Churchill Park Subdivision ("Subdivision"), which is located outside the Town's municipal
limits. The water service for the Subdivision is provided by a separate entity, the West Madison
Utility District ("Utility District"). The Town has no agreement with the Utility District to
terminate a resident's water service due to nonpayment of sewer service.
Question Presented
May the Town terminate water service provided by the Utility District to residents of the
Subdivision for nonpayment of sewer service provided by the Town?
Brief Response
No. The Town does not have the authority to terminate water service for nonpayment of sewer
service because the Town does not provide water service in the Subdivision.
Applicable Law and Discussion
Municipalities are authorized to own and operate water systems, any other utility system, or a
combination of systems as defined in Section 21-27-11(b). Municipalities are further authorized
by Section 21-27-39 to provide utility services to citizens within five (5) miles outside their
corporate limits. Pursuant to Section 21-27-23(e), municipalities have the authority:

To establish, maintain and collect rates for the facilities and services offered by any
such system; provided that if there is a combination of systems into one or more
systems, the municipality establishing the same shall be and is empowered to
establish, maintain and collect rates for any and all of the services or for any
combination thereof, and the municipality may discontinue any or all of the
services upon any failure to promptly pay the charges fixed for the services….
(emphasis added.) We have opined that a municipality may terminate a utility service for failure
to pay a just bill, but that "authority is specific to the unpaid service provided." MS AG Op.,
Greenlee at *1 (Apr. 3, 2009). According to Section 21-27-23(e), this authority to discontinue
services for failure to pay is limited to services provided by the municipality. The Town has neither
ownership nor operational authority over the water service provided to the Subdivision. It is
therefore the opinion of this office that because the Utility District, not the Town, provides water
to the residents of the Subdivision, the Town has no authority to terminate the water services in
the Subdivision.
It appears from your request that your understanding of the concerns raised by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") regarding shutting off sewer service for
nonpayment without simultaneously shutting off water service is not based on your own
discussions with MDEQ, and a direct conversation with that agency may offer alternative options
for enforcing payment for services while ensuring appropriate health and safety standards for the
residents of the Subdivision. For example, in the 2004 request to this office by your predecessor,
Flora Mayor Richardson noted that some of the residents of the Subdivision were previously on
septic tanks and could be reconnected. MS AG Op., Richardson (Feb. 2, 2004). We would also
note that an interlocal agreement with the Utility District that could allow the Town to enforce
payment for sewer services would not be atypical. See MS AG Op., Jacks (Mar. 30, 2012).
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:

/s/ Abigail C. Overby
Abigail C. Overby
Special Assistant Attorney General