City of Lewiston v. Auburn Water District

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 9, 2023
• Docket: CUMbcd-cv-22-31
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. BCD-CIV-2022-00031

i. i CITY OF LEWISTON, ) ) -

; Plaintiff, ) ) '

) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS AND ) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON -

_ ) THE PLEADINGS -

AUBURN WATER DISTRICT, ) ) Defendant, ) ) And ) ) . INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN ) 'OF TURNER, et al., ) "

) Parties-in—Interest. )

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is the Defendant Auburn Water District's (the "AWD") Motion to Dismiss

and Motion for Judgment on the Headings conceming Plaintifi' the City of Lewiston's

("Lewiston") Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the above-captioned matter. The court heard

argument on AWD's motion on May 31, 2023. For the reasons discussed below, AWD's motion

is denied.

' BACIiGROUND

The court accepts the following facts, as pled by Lewiston in its Complaint, as true and i

construes them in the light most favorable to Lewiston for the limited purpose of deciding AWD's

motion.

Lewiston supplies drinking water and water for other residential and commercial uses to

its residents through its utility the Water & Sewer Division of the LewistOn Public Works l 1 '

Department. (PL's Compl. 1['[[ 3-4.) AWD is the water utility that provides drinking water and

water for other uses from the local public water supply, Lake Auburn, to the City of Auburn and

the Town of Poland. (P1. 's Compl. {[117-8, 18.) It was chartered by the State. of Maine Legislature,

and it operates according to its charter and bylaws. (Pl.'s Compl. llll 5-6.)

On June 29, 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") published the Surface

|Watei' Treatment Rule pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which rule requires disinfection

and filtration for all public water systems that draw from waters that are under-the direct influence

of surface water (the"'Filtration Requirements"). (P1.'s Compl. 'll 25.) Systems with demonstrable

compliance with the rule's most stringent wate'r quality criteria could qualifil for avoidance of its

Filtration Requirements and obtain a waiver. (P1.'s Compl. 1[ 26.)

The Maine Drinking Water Program notified Lewiston that the surface water of Lake

Auburn required filtration before June 19, 1992. (P1.'s Compl. 1] 27.) Lewiston believes that AWD

received the same netification. (PI.'s Compl. 1[ 28.) Compliance with the Filtration Requirements

_ would cost the parties' ratepayers tens of millions of dollars in addition to annual operating costs.1

(P1.'s Compl. 11 29.) On August 14, 1989, Lewiston, through its water utility, andAWD agreed to .

share the costs of a water quality study to determine the need for, cost and benefit of improved

[water' treatment, as well as. the availability of a waiver-exemption from the Filtration

l Requirements. (P133 Compl. ll 30.)

The engineering firm retained to lead the study recommended thatthe parties enter into an

interlocal agreement- regarding oversight and control of the watershed, that AWD adopt new

water quality and bylaws, and that Lewiston and AWD make capital improvements .to improve wrote to reliability.. (PL's Compl. 1[ 31.) On March 21, 1991, the Maine Drinking Water' Program l

I

l

' with projected During 1991, it was estimated that compliance would cost up to approximately $24,000,000,- I

additional annual operating costs between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000. (PL's Compl. 1H 29, 44f.) I

2 hewiston, copying AWD, and stated that "for a filtration waiver to be granted, it will take the

to assure the continuing success of watershed protection." (Pl.'s leommi'tment of both communities

'Compl. 1] 32.)

'On August 27,*1991, AWD adopted the Bylav'vs for Protection ofthake Auburn. (Pl.'s

the Maine Drinking Water ICOmpl. 1[ 34.) Shortly thereafter AWD submitted an application to

Program for an exemption to the Filtration Requirements. (PL's Compl. 1[ 35.) The bylaws and

35d- application each, in part, described the subject watershed and-its boundaries. (PL's- Compl. 1"]

6, 36a-b.) They also described AWD's powers and responsibilities flowing from its original

lcharter. (PL's Compl. 1m 35 a—c, 36c-e.) Around this same time, Lewiston submitted a separate but

identical application for the waiver. (Pl.'s Compl. 1! 37.) Each party's application'was approved

orr December 30, 1991, on the condition, among others, that each conduct watershed control

activities consistent with the EPA's avoidance requirements outlined in the application. (PL's

Compl. fl 3 8.)

On May 19, 1993, Lewiston, through its water utility, and AW]_) entered into a purchase

and sale agreement-(the "P&S Agreement"). (Pl.'s Compl. 11 40.) The P&S.Agreement quantified

' the area of the Watershed, and it acknowledged that land use activities within the watershed could

.compro'mise Lalre Aubuirn's water quality and the necessity of control measures to abate such

impacts. (Pl.'s Compl. 1H] 40a—b.) The P&_S Agreement also. memorialized (1) Lewiston's

that said purchase, for $750,000,, of a one-half interest in AWD's land within the watershed, (2)

interest. was to be conveyed to the Lake Aubum Watershed Protection Commission, (3) that

Lewiston otherwise conveyed to said commission the entirety of its interest in lands within the

watershed, (4) that an additional $31,800 was paid by AWD to the commission, and_ (5) that

Lewiston granted a ten—year lease for a water main at a below-market rate. (PL's Compl. 11 40c.) Apart from'the "transactional content, the P858 Agreement also delineated commitments

Undertaken by the parties. Foremost and consistent with the Maine'Drinking Water Program's

guidance, the P&S Agreement Contemplated the parties' execution of an interlocal agreement.

l(Pl.'s Compl. 1] 40d.) The interlocal agreement would establish the Lake Auburn Watershed

Protection Commissidn. (PL's Compl. 1[,40d.) Moreover, the interlocal agreement would oblige

EAWD to use its charter authority to protect the Latte Auburn Watershed and to ensure that the

parties maintain their exemptions from the Filtration Requirements. (PL's Compl. 1i 40e.) I

On June 29, 1993, Lewiston, AWD, and Party—in-Interest the Town of Turner entered into'

the Interlocal Agreement for Lake Auburn "Watershed Protection (the "Basic Agreement"),

pursuant to the P853 Agreement and in accordance with 30-A M.R.S. §§ 2201-2208 (1989). (PL's

Compl.- 1H] 10, 42.) The Basic Agreement created the Lake Auburn Watershed Protection

Commission, whichpwns approximately 1,600 acres of the local. Lake Auburn. watershed that

Poland. (PL's Compl. '[HI . comprises much of the public water supply for Lewiston, Auburn, and

ill,' 13, 40c-d, 41, 44g-.h.). It also formally established. the total area of the watershed and the:

parties' rights to use it to supply'drinking water. (PL's Compl. 1[ 44b-c.)

Regarding the-Filtration Requirements, the Basic Agreement.acknowledged.i that land use

within the '

rand, activities within the watershed could impact water purity; that land use controls

watershed are.therefore essential to securing and maintaining the exemption to the Filtration

Requirements; and that the parties' consumers will bear the .cost of compliance. with the Filtration

It Requirements if an-exemptionitherefi'om is not obtained or maintained; (PL's "Compl. '[i 44d-f.)

also delegated the Lake Auburn Watershed Protection Commission a concturent authority to

enforce applicable laws andordinancesfor the purpose of preserving water purity throughout the

watershed. (Pl. 's Complt 1[ 44L). In delineating AWD.—.'s powers thereunder;a thelBasic Agreement prdvides, "in relevant part:

"The [AWD] pledges,- covenants, and agrees,.. .to consider recommendations fiom ' the [Lake Auburn Watershed Protection Commission1 and also to exercise its regulatory autho1ity over the Lake and watershed pursuant to its Charter and law and to enact, amend, or repeal those lawful by-laws, regulations, orders, or ordinances in such manner and to such extent as is required or advisable to control . and protect the watershed or waters of Lake Auburn in order for both parties to maintain their exemptions from filtration requirements under the surface water ' treatment rules adopted under the Safe Drinking Water Ac ."

Comp1.1[ 45; Ex. L § 7.) 1(Plfs Nearly thirty years after execution of the Basic Agreement and various related.

agreements, on November 13, 2020, Auburn published a request for proposals for an

Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed.

(PL's Compl. 11 50.) That request made no mention of the BasicAgreement. (PL's Compl.

if 52.) One initiative proposed in response to the request, and that was subsequently

the watershed's adopted during March lof 2022 by Auburn's City Council, modified

boundaries and reduced its area. (PL's Compl. Till 58-63.) That modification to the

watershed was approved by AWD. (PL's Compl.1]1[ 64-67.)

A second proposed initiative involved revisionsI to Aubum's septic design standard and adoption of portions-of the Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal, Rules. (Plfs

Compl. 1] 69.) In 2022, the Auburn Planning Board approved the proposed septic

ordinance, which permitted construction on new sites within the watershed where

construction wasnot permissible prior to the approval of the new septic ordinance. (PL's

Compl. iiii 69-70.)

. On April 15, 2022, the State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection

notified Lewiston by letter that, concerning the septic ordinance, "additional land use

controls and off-site mitigation would be needed to mitigate" new pollutants loading 1 into Lake Auburn. (PL's Compl. 1] 71.) The Director of the Maine Drinking Water Program

'sent a similar letter to Auburn. (Pl.'s Compl. '[[ 72.) Each of Lewiston and AWD were

1copied to each communication. (Pl.'s Compl. m] 71-72.) I

On March 31, 2022, a Lewiston City Administrator requested that AWD honor its

to Lewiston under the Basic Agreement to enact or amend governance and |commitments

regulatory measures to control and protect the watershed or waters of Lake Auburn in order

for Lewiston and AWD bottl to maintain and benefit from their exemptions to the Filtration -

Requirements imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act. (P1.'s Compl. 1] 74.).

The Plaintiif here only seeks the parties' rights and obligations under the Basic

Agreement. It does not seek damages or injunctive relief. (Pl. '3 Compl. 'H 81; Pl.'s Resp.

to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss and for Mot. J. Pleadings, 6). The Prayer for Relief, in paragraphs

A, B, D, E, essentially requests that the court declare the parties' rights. (PL's Compl. 1m

A.-B, D-E.)_ only paragraph C appears to ask the court to find that AWD has breached the

Basic Agreement.2 ____

LEGAL STANDARD A motion for_ judgment on the pleadings under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) tests .3. _._T,

» e legal sufficiency of the complaint}I Cunningham v. Haza, 538 A.2d 265, 267 (Me. 1988). __

When, as here, the defendant is the moving party the motion is treated as "nothing more than a

motion under M.R. Civ. P. i2(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for' failure to state a claim upon which

2 The court was not clear after oral argument whether the Plaintifi' continues to seek that relief and does not counsel whether that is the case as it would address it here. Plaintiffirshould inform the court and opposing impact the course of any remaining discovery or trial. 3 Generally, a. court may consider only the..pleadings on a motion. to dismiss. Est. of Robbins 1'7. Chebeague & pumberl'and Land 7):, 2017 ME 17, 1] n.2, 2 154 A.3d [185 (citing Moody v. State' & Liquor Lottery Camm'n, 2004 A.2d official documents central to the plaintifi's complaint, and ME 20, iii 8-9, 843 43). However, public documents, referred to therein may also be considered in a ruling on a motion to dismiss "without-converting [the] documents motion into a motion for summary judgment when the authenticity of such documents is notchallenged." Id. Mooajl, 2004 ME 20, 1f 10. 843 A.2d 43).. l(citing . 6 relief can be granted." Wawenoclr. LLC v. Dept of Transp., 2018 ME 83, 1| 4, 187 A.3d 609

(citation omitted). Hence, when reviewing the complaint, the court assumes the factual allegations

are'true, examines the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and ascertains whether'

the complaint alleges the elements of a cause of action or facts entitling the plaintift' to relief on

legal theory. Id. (citation omitted). :sorrie '

_ = : DISCUSSION '

Levviston's Complaint is limited to a single count and requests primarily declaratory relief.

(Pls.' Compl. ill 76-81.) Generally, 'it seeks declarations regarding the parties' respective rights

under the Basic Agreement and AWD'S duties flowing fi-om its charter and bylaws.

Notwithstanding the absence of any specific breach or other injury pled by Lewiston, the court is

authorized to grant declaratory relief before the occurrence of a breach of the parties' contract. See

M.R.S. 5955 (2022). €14 Ii

Here, there is a justiciable dispute. The parties disagree whether the Basic Agreement I.ic

ontains provisions that would impact AWD's ability to change the boundary of the watershed i

iserving Lake Auburn or allow changes to septic regulations. The court finds that the Basic

EAgreement is ambiguous with respect to the existence and scope of any contractual obligation it I .

lplaces upon AWD. The parties identified a lot of facts that may impact whethei' these events

implicate any obligation, if any, on AWD. Hence,- it willbe necessary to adduce facts to interpret

the Basic Agreement_ and establish the parties' relative rights and obligations with respect to

oversight of the Lake Auburn watershed and. preservation of the waiVer—exemption from the

Filtration Requirements:1 Given the existence of a dispute and Lewiston's statutory right to ask

the court to determine the right and obligations of the parties to a contract prior to a breach,

f'lhe court may also decline to decide the request for declaratory relief if any court order would not "terminate the or controversy giving rise to the proceeding" afier it hears the case. 14 M.R.S. § 595 8 (2022). uncertainty '

7 however, the court concludes that Lewiston's Complaint pleads a cause of action for declaratory

relief sufficient to survive AWD's Motion to Dismiss and for Judgmeht on the Pleadings.

The parties should confer and submit a proposed scheduling order or request a conference

'with the court if necessary to inform the future course of these proceedings.

CONCLUSION ' -'

l '

Based on the foregoing, the entry will be: Defendant Auburn Water District's Motion to

Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

So ordered.

The Clerlr is requested to enter this Order on the Docket, incorporating it by reference

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a):

Date: 5/7 /Z'3 ,4'wzflJ/ Thomas R. McKeon Justice, Business & Consumer Court

Entered on the docket: 06/09/2023