Does a Mississippi city have to extend sewer service into a private subdivision whose own lagoon system has failed?

Plain-English summary

Saltillo asked whether it has to spend roughly $500,000 to extend a city sewer main into a 20-year-old subdivision whose private sewer lagoon (originally built and operated by the developer) has failed and is now leaking raw sewage into the ground. The corporation that owned the lagoon was administratively dissolved in 2018, so there is no functioning private operator left.

The Attorney General's answer in three parts:

• The city is not required to extend sewer service. Municipal sewer construction and operation in Mississippi has always been discretionary, not mandatory. The Mississippi Supreme Court said so in 1956 (City of Greenville v. Queen City Lumber Co.).
• The city may choose to extend service if it wants to. Section 21-27-23 gives municipalities broad authority to acquire, build, own, operate, and maintain sewer systems, including issuing revenue bonds for that purpose. Whether it is reasonable to do so for this subdivision is a factual judgment for the governing authority, measured by the City of Greenwood v. Provine "reasonableness" standard (demand, number of users, revenue projection).
• Service-line repairs on private lots are usually the homeowner's job, with narrow exceptions. Generally the city maintains the main line up to the connection point, and the homeowner maintains the line from there to the house. The city can step in to repair on private property only when (a) the work is part of an overall plan to serve the general public, or (b) there is an exigent circumstance and the repair is the cheapest way to protect the integrity of the public system. The Board of Supervisors or governing authority makes the exigency call.
• The city can repair the sewer lagoon if the lagoon is deeded to the city and the city decides that is more cost-effective than running a new main.

What this means for you

If you are on the Saltillo Board of Aldermen (or a similar municipal governing authority)

You have a real choice here, not an obligation. You will not be sued for failing to extend sewer service into the subdivision, because there is no Mississippi statute making it mandatory. But if you choose to extend service, you should:

1. Document on the minutes a finding that the extension is reasonable under City of Greenwood v. Provine: who will be served, expected revenue, capital cost.
2. Decide which mechanism (new main line vs. taking over the existing lagoon) is more financially feasible. The AG explicitly says lagoon takeover is a permissible option if the lagoon is deeded to the city.
3. Be cautious about repairing service lines that sit on private lots. The default rule is that property owners pay for service lines from the connection point to the residence. Section 21-19-1 even lets cities pass ordinances requiring residents to maintain those lines. Don't pay for private-lot work unless your governing authority finds (and documents) an exigent-circumstance exception.

If you live in the subdivision

You don't have a legal right to compel the city to extend sewer service to you, even though you are inside the city limits and pay city water bills. The city has discretion. Your best route is to make the case at a public meeting that extending service is reasonable: how many homes, what the developer collected from you historically, the public-health risk from the leaking lagoon.

You should also expect that even if the city does extend, the cost of repairing or replacing the line on your individual lot is probably your responsibility. If your sewer line on your property is broken, plan and budget for that yourself.

If you are a developer who is currently operating (or sold) a private sewer lagoon

This opinion is a reminder that a private sewer system on a subdivision can become an orphan when the operator dissolves, and the city is not legally required to take it over. If you are building a subdivision today and planning to use a private lagoon rather than connecting to the city, set up a homeowner-funded long-term maintenance reserve and a clear succession plan. Otherwise the residents are stuck if the operator entity disappears.

If you are a real-estate buyer in a subdivision served by a private lagoon

Before closing, ask: who owns the lagoon, who pays for maintenance, what happens if the operator dissolves? "The city will eventually take it over" is not a legal guarantee. Get this in writing or in the title work.

Common questions

Q: Is a Mississippi city legally required to provide sewer service everywhere within its limits?
A: No. The decision to build or extend a municipal sewer system is discretionary. The Mississippi Supreme Court confirmed this in City of Greenville v. Queen City Lumber Co., 86 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1956). The reasonableness standard (City of Greenwood v. Provine) limits abuse but does not force extension.

Q: Who pays to fix the sewer line on my private lot?
A: As a default, the property owner. The city maintains the main line up to the connection point. From the connection point to the house, that is the homeowner's responsibility. The city may even pass an ordinance requiring you to maintain it.

Q: Can a city ever spend public money to fix a sewer line on private property?
A: Yes, but only in narrow situations: when the work is part of an overall public-service plan with proper easement, or when there is an "exigent circumstance" and the private-side fix is the best and least expensive way to protect the integrity of the public system. The governing authority decides whether that exception applies.

Q: Can the city take over a failing private sewer lagoon?
A: Yes, if the lagoon is deeded to the city. Section 21-27-23 lets municipalities acquire, improve, own, and operate sewer systems. Whether it is more cost-effective to take over the lagoon or to build a new main connection is a financial question for the governing authority.

Q: What happens to a subdivision when the corporation that owned the private sewer system is administratively dissolved?
A: There is no automatic transfer to the city. The infrastructure becomes an orphan asset. Residents have to either persuade the city to extend public service, or organize themselves (often through a homeowners association) to take over operation. There may be Department of Environmental Quality enforcement on the leaking lagoon in the meantime.

Q: Can the AG decide whether the city's specific extension decision is "reasonable"?
A: No. Section 7-5-25 limits the AG to prospective questions of state law. Whether a specific extension is reasonable is a factual question for the governing authority, subject to court review.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi treats municipal water and sewer service as a permissive power, not a mandatory duty. Section 21-27-23 gives municipalities authority to "acquire or improve" any waterworks, water supply, or sewer system, to issue revenue bonds for that purpose, and to "own, operate and maintain" those systems. The statute uses the word "may" throughout, signaling discretion.

The Mississippi Supreme Court built out this framework in two key cases:

• City of Greenwood v. Provine, 108 So. 284 (Miss. 1926): A municipality's decision to extend its water (or, by analogy, sewer) system into newly annexed or underserved areas is committed to municipal discretion, "and unless an abuse in the exercise of their judgment in that regard is manifest, then their decision of the question is final." The court listed factors the municipality may weigh: demand, number of subscribers, revenue.
• City of Greenville v. Queen City Lumber Co., 86 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1956): Confirmed that constructing and maintaining a sewer system is discretionary, not mandatory.

For service-line maintenance, the AG's office has issued a long string of opinions (Snowden 1999, Brannon 2012, Brannon 2023, Brown 2002) drawing a line at the connection point. Above the connection: city responsibility. Below the connection: property owner. Two narrow exceptions allow city work on private property: an overall public-service plan executed under a proper easement, and exigent circumstances threatening the integrity of the public system.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-23 (municipal water and sewer system authority)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-19-1 (municipal ordinance authority over private property maintenance)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (Attorney General opinion authority)

Cases:
- City of Greenville v. Queen City Lumber Co., 86 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1956): Sewer construction and maintenance is discretionary, not mandatory.
- City of Greenwood v. Provine, 108 So. 284 (Miss. 1926): Reasonableness standard for utility extensions.

Prior AG opinions cited:
- MS AG Op., Brannon (Dec. 21, 2012): Reasonableness standard applies to sewer extensions.
- MS AG Op., Brannon (June 29, 2023): Connection-point rule for service-line responsibility.
- MS AG Op., Snowden (Feb. 12, 1999): Originating the connection-point rule.
- MS AG Op., Peeples (Aug. 11, 1993): Same; ordinance authority under Section 21-19-1.
- MS AG Op., Brown (Oct. 18, 2002): Exigent-circumstances exception for repair on private property.
- MS AG Op., Miller (Oct. 20, 1989): Same.

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/C.-Evans-August-28-2025-Saltillo-City-Sewer-System.pdf

Original opinion text

August 28, 2025

Christopher G. Evans, Esq.
Attorney, City of Saltillo
Post Office Box 7326
Tupelo, Mississippi 38802-7326

Re: Saltillo City Sewer System

Dear Mr. Evans:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Background

According to your request, the city of Saltillo (the "City") operates its own water and sewer department and provides, where and when available, water and sewer services to its citizens and to some developments outside the city limits. More than 20 years ago, a subdivision was created within the city limits. When the subdivision was created, the owner chose to provide sewer service to the development by way of its own sewer lagoon. Due to this fact, the City has never provided or billed for sewer service to any of the development. However, city water service is provided to the homes and small businesses located in the development. In summary, the City provides water service to the development but has never provided sewer service.

Initially, the occupants of the subdivision paid a monthly or annual sewer fee to the developer, presumably for maintenance and upkeep. Over the years, the development has changed ownership on one or more occasions, and the common areas and the sewer lagoon are currently owned by a Mississippi corporation which was administratively dissolved by the Mississippi Secretary of State in 2018. Accordingly, the sewer lagoon and related sewer infrastructure have not been properly maintained for some time, and the system recently began leaking raw sewage onto the ground through one or more manholes in the development.

To potentially connect the development to existing city sewer services, a main line would need to be constructed from the development to the existing city main line at an approximate cost of $500,000. Additionally, since the City has never maintained the sewer infrastructure, it is suspected that there may be issues with the internal infrastructure of the system and possibly even to service lines on the individual lots. If that is the case, the cost to convert the development to the existing city sewer system would be considerably higher.

Questions Presented

1. Under the factual scenario described above, is the City legally obligated to pay for and build the necessary infrastructure to provide sewer services to the subject development?
2. If the response to the mandate issue above is in the negative, may the City, in its discretion, expend public funds to build the necessary infrastructure to provide sewer services to the subject development?
3. If the response to either issue number one or two above is in the affirmative, may the City expend public funds to repair or replace service lines on the privately owned lots, as may be necessary, in order to provide service to each individual customer or would this be the responsibility of the individual owner? Potentially, these repairs might need to occur in order to protect the integrity of the entire city sewer system.
4. If the response to either issue number one or two above is in the affirmative, may the City, in its discretion, expend public funds to repair and maintain the sewer lagoon, provided that it was deeded to the City and determined that this option would be more financially feasible as either a temporary or permanent solution rather than constructing a new main line?

Brief Response

1. As highlighted by the Mississippi Supreme Court in City of Greenville v. Queen City Lumber Co., 86 So. 2d 860, 863 (Miss. 1956), a municipality's decision to construct and maintain a sewer system is discretionary, not mandatory.
2. Please see response to question one.
3. "This office has consistently opined that '[a] municipality has authority to maintain the main sewer line to the point of connection with the service line, and the property owner has responsibility to maintain the service line from the point of connection with the main line to the residence.'" MS AG Op., Brannon at 2 (June 29, 2023) (quoting MS AG Op., Snowden at 2 (Feb. 12, 1999)).
4. We find no prohibition against such action under Mississippi law.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-27-23 provides in part,

Any municipality may:

(a) Borrow money and issue revenue bonds therefor solely for the purposes specified in this section and by the procedure provided in Sections 21-27-41 through 21-27-69.

Money may be borrowed and bonds issued by any municipality of the State of Mississippi . . . to acquire or improve any waterworks system, water supply system, sewerage system, sewage disposal system . . .

(c) To acquire or improve any system which it is authorized to borrow money and issue revenue bonds under subsection (a) of this section to acquire or improve; and to make contracts in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith.

(d) To own, operate and maintain any such system or combination of any and all of said systems into one (1) system.

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-23 (emphasis added). Public works contractors for a municipality must submit "the usual bond with good and sufficient sureties."

You first ask whether the City is legally obligated to pay for and build the necessary infrastructure to provide sewer services to the subject development, and if not, if the City has the discretion to do so. As highlighted by the Mississippi Supreme Court in City of Greenville, 86 So. 2d at 863, a municipality's decision to construct and maintain a sewer system is discretionary, not mandatory. This said, as we have previously confirmed, the reasonableness standard first set forth in City of Greenwood v. Provine, 108 So. 284 (Miss. 1926), in relation to municipal water services, likewise applies to sewer services when a municipality is exercising its discretion to extend main lines. MS AG Op., Brannon at *2 (Dec. 21, 2012). Ultimately, whether the City has met this standard is a "factual determination[] to be made by the governing authorities, subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. Pursuant to Section 7-5-25, our office may only opine upon prospective matters of state law; we may not opine upon factual determinations.

You next ask if the City may expend public funds to repair or replace service lines on privately owned lots, as may be necessary, in order to provide service to each individual customer or if this would be the responsibility of the individual owner. "This office has consistently opined that '[a] municipality has authority to maintain the main sewer line to the point of connection with the service line, and the property owner has responsibility to maintain the service line from the point of connection with the main line to the residence.'" MS AG Op., Brannon at 2 (June 29, 2023) (quoting MS AG Op., Snowden at 2); see also MS AG Op., Peeples at 1 (Aug. 11, 1993) (providing same and noting "[a] city may also adopt ordinances requiring residents to properly maintain sewer lines on their property pursuant to [Section] 21-19-1"). That is to say, "[a] municipality may not construct or maintain a sewer line "on private property for the sole purpose of benefitting one landowner." Id. (quoting MS AG Op., Brannon at 3 (Dec. 21, 2012)). Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this general rule. For example, "a municipality may construct a water line on private property, subject to proper easement, when such construction is part of the overall purpose and plan of providing present and future utility service to the general public." Id. Likewise, "a municipality may repair a sewer line on private property in exigent circumstances if such work is the best and the least expensive way to correct the problem in the public line and maintain the integrity of the [entire] system." MS AG Op., Brown at 1 (Oct. 18, 2002) (citing MS AG Op., Snowden at 2; MS AG Op., Miller (Oct. 20, 1989)). In such instances, governing authorities determine whether exigent circumstances exist. Id.

Finally, you ask if the City may, in its discretion, expend public funds to repair and maintain the sewer lagoon, provided that it was deeded to the City and determined that this option would be more financially feasible as either a temporary or permanent solution rather than constructing a new main line. We find no prohibition against such action under Mississippi law; as shown supra, a municipality is authorized to acquire, improve, own, operate, and maintain sewer systems under Section 21-27-23.

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/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General