Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Management v. City of Guthrie

Opinion on Spending Clause challenge to 1926(b) protection


On July 25, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in the Guthrie appeal. This decision applied the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June 29, 2010 decision on certified questions. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit determined that the monopoly protection available under Section 1926(b) does not violate state law and is, therefore, constitutional under the federal Spending Clause. In its June 29, 2010 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court relied mostly on federal precedent in holding that Section 1926(b) protection is a qualified right, that it is provided by federal law rather than state law, and that Section 1926(b) preempts any state law restriction on the state rural water district's ability to obtain Section 1926(b) protection. These holdings are problematic for municipal water service providers because the scope, extent, and availability of Section 1926(b) protection would appear to be left entirely up to the federal government. This leaves a federal agency (the USDA and its rural development division) in charge of the otherwise local issue of water service boundaries. Under these decisions, even the state constitution, and its prohibition against the creation of monopolies, can be set aside by the federal government and its exercise of spending powers.

To make matters worse, both the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit turned back the slow momentum that had been building in recent decisions on the issue of fire protection. The Tenth Circuit has determined that water needs for fire protection are not relevant to the issue of "made service available" in Section 1926(b) cases. As a result, the federal courts can decide who provides water to residential subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments, and even healthcare facilities, based upon federal law, without regard to whether the water provider can meet the basic water needs associated with fire protection. Removing such an important public interest from the equation could have significant on-the-ground impacts.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Energy & Utilities Updates, Environmental Updates

Reference Info:Decision | Federal, 10th Circuit, Oklahoma | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Jim Milton, Hall Estill | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »