Benson W. Peak v. City of Tuscaloosa

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/29/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-0805 Benson W. Peak v. City Appeal WELCH, Presiding of Tuscaloosa from T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t (CC-07-268) Court Judge. B e n s o n W. P e a k w a s c o n v i c t e d i n t h e T u s c a l o o s a Court septic of failing tank, Tuscaloosa a to register violation M u n i c i p a l Code. a wastewater o f §§ 13-51(3) Municipal system, i.e., a n d (16) o f t h e He a p p e a l e d f o r a t r i a l de n o v o i n a CR-09-0805 the c i r c u i t c o u r t and, a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l , was of f a i l i n g to r e g i s t e r a wastewater system. ordered The him t o pay a $250 f i n e undisputed within Tuscaloosa property; in he accordance Code, as i n the the ("the court evidence presented P e a k owns p r o p e r t y located plus City"). d i d not with amended by 2 register that § 13-51(3) ordinance of no. has a convicted circuit of 1 indicates that Lake of septic Tuscaloosa the 6943, Tuscaloosa 3 which City tank s e p t i c tank with the court costs. jurisdiction Peak The at t r i a l drainage basin police again on the of his City Municipal provides: J e f f r e y Motz, geographic-information-system manager w i t h the C i t y of Tuscaloosa, t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l that a drainage b a s i n " i s a p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e of the Earth's s u r f a c e , a bowl shape t h a t a c t s as a f u n n e l w h e r e b y any w a t e r h i t t i n g the s u r f a c e of t h a t would through g r a v i t y d r a i n to a lowest p o i n t of w a t e r s o u r c e " and t h a t what c o n s t i t u t e s a d r a i n a g e b a s i n i s d e t e r m i n e d by the c o n t o u r s of the s u r f a c e of the E a r t h , i . e . , the slope of the land. (R. 119.) 1 'Section 11-40-10(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides that " [ o ] r d i n a n c e s of a c i t y or town e n f o r c i n g p o l i c e or s a n i t a r y r e g u l a t i o n s and p r e s c r i b i n g f i n e s and p e n a l t i e s f o r v i o l a t i o n s t h e r e o f s h a l l have f o r c e and e f f e c t i n t h e l i m i t s o f t h e c i t y o r town and i n the p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f a n d on any p r o p e r t y or r i g h t s - o f - w a y b e l o n g i n g to the c i t y or town." Section 13-51 of the Tuscaloosa Municipal Code was originally e n a c t e d b y O r d i n a n c e No. 6619, a d o p t e d by the T u s c a l o o s a C i t y C o u n c i l on A u g u s t 3, 2 0 0 4 . O v e r t h e n e x t two y e a r s , § 1 3 - 5 1 was a m e n d e d f i v e t i m e s b y o r d i n a n c e s n o . 6 6 6 5 , no. 6729, no. 6861, no. 6898, and no. 6943. A l l six 3 2 CR-09-0805 "Registration. On o r b e f o r e A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a l l Owners w i t h i n t h e D r a i n a g e B a s i n upon w h i c h i s l o c a t e d an o n s i t e w a s t e w a t e r s y s t e m s h a l l register the same w i t h the Lakes D i v i s i o n [the City of Tuscaloosa's Water and Sewer D e p a r t m e n t ' s D i v i s i o n of Lakes]. On each occasion of a change in o w n e r s h i p of p r o p e r t y w i t h i n the D r a i n a g e B a s i n upon w h i c h i s l o c a t e d an o n s i t e w a s t e w a t e r s y s t e m , the O w n e r o f s u c h p r o p e r t y s h a l l r e g i s t e r t h e same w i t h the Lakes D i v i s i o n . " (C. 308.) as S e c t i o n 13-51(16) of the T u s c a l o o s a added by ordinance 6943 p r o v i d e s , to In fail 6665 a n d amended by i n relevant part, that " [ i ] t to register addition, § provides, no. as r e q u i r e d i n Sec. 1-8(a) in relevant of the Municipal ordinance s h a l l be 13-51(3)." Tuscaloosa Code, no. unlawful (C. 308.) Municipal Code part: "Whenever i n t h i s Code, o r i n any o r d i n a n c e of the city, an act i s p r o h i b i t e d or i s made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, whenever i n such code o r o r d i n a n c e the d o i n g o f a n y a c t i s r e q u i r e d , o r t h e f a i l u r e t o do any act i s declared to be unlawful, where no s p e c i f i c p e n a l t y i s p r o v i d e d t h e r e f o r , the v i o l a t i o n o f any s u c h p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s Code o r any such ordinance s h a l l be p u n i s h e d b y a f i n e o f n o t m o r e t h a n f i v e h u n d r e d d o l l a r s ( $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) , t o w h i c h may be added i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the judge of the court t r y i n g the case, confinement i n the c i t y j a i l or to hard l a b o r f o r the c i t y f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding six (6) m o n t h s . ... " o r d i n a n c e s p e r t a i n i n g t o § 13-51 by the C i t y a t t r i a l . 3 were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence CR-09-0805 (C. 324.) ordinance The p u r p o s e of enacting § 13-51 i s s e t o u t i n no. 6619, as f o l l o w s : "WHEREAS, L a k e T u s c a l o o s a ( L a k e ) i s t h e m o s t v i t a l c a p i t a l asset o f Tuscaloosa County. Completed i n 1 9 7 0 , t h e L a k e c o n s i s t s o f 5,885 a c r e s w i t h a f u l l p o o l c a p a c i t y o f 40 b i l l i o n g a l l o n s o f w a t e r a n d a w i t h d r a w a l c a p a b i l i t y o f 200 m i l l i o n s g a l l o n s per day. The L a k e s e r v e s a c r i t i c a l r o l e a s t h e primary source of drinking water f o r the vast m a j o r i t y o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f Tuscaloosa County. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Lake a l s o f u n c t i o n s as a major p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n a l c e n t e r f o r many r e s i d e n t s a n d v i s i t o r s ; and, "WHEREAS, o v e r t h e l a s t t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) y e a r s t h e r e has been significant residential and commercial development i n and around t h e Lake w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e development a c t i v i t y u t i l i z i n g septic tanks for sanitary sewer d i s p o s a l . Within the Lake's entire drainage basin more development i s also t a k i n g p l a c e , i n c l u d i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l and commercial activities and the domestic use of h e r b i c i d e s , fertilizer and p e s t i c i d e s have increased with development as w e l l ; and, "WHEREAS, o n J a n u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e T u s c a l o o s a County H e a l t h Department (Department) p r e s e n t e d a report to the City Council of the City of Tuscaloosa (City) as t h e owner of the Lake, entitled 'Tuscaloosa County Board o f H e a l t h , Lake Tuscaloosa Plan' (Plan). The P l a n reported that ongoing m o n i t o r i n g of t h e water o f t h e Lake 'demonstrated higher than normal b a c t e r i a l and other quality standards. There were several locations which e x c e e d e d t h e recommended l e v e l o f f e c a l coliform bacteria for "full body contact" by t h e EPA [Environmental Protection Agency].' The Plan proposed a public notification program to post notices of water q u a l i t y findings. In addition, the D e p a r t m e n t made s p e c i f i c r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e C i t y 4 CR-09-0805 to address, on a l o n g term basis, sources of p o l l u t i o n and c o n t a m i n a t i o n t o t h e Lake which a r e i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g p r i m a r i l y f a i l i n g s e p t i c tanks, l a c k o f u s e o f B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s (BMP) f o r site development and the use of herbicides, f e r t i l i z e r s and p e s t i c i d e s ; and, "WHEREAS, a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e s e e v e n t s , t h e C i t y C o u n c i l has determined t h a t i ti s imperative t o protect the public health, s a f e t y and welfare by enacting certain regulations regarding the i n s t a l l a t i o n , operation, and maintenance of o n s i t e wastewater systems i n the drainage basins of the C i t y ' s water supply r e s e r v o i r s . " (C. 278.) Before t r i a l , him charging alleging (1) that that ordinance said, Peak moved t o d i s m i s s him with failing § 1 3 - 5 1 was the City providing invalid. to function (2) the entire preempted by s t a t e of due States bear process and the authority field supply i s a he of wastewater tank, argued: to enact an because, he proprietary and not a governmental l a w ; (3) t h a t equal water i t s citizens of a municipality that Specifically, i t s municipal water against to register h i s septic d i d n o t have to protect the complaint function; regulation has been § 13-51 v i o l a t e s p r i n c i p l e s protection under both the United a n d A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , i t does n o t a interest; rational relation to a legitimate governmental a n d (4) t h a t § 1 3 - 5 1 ( 3 ) v i o l a t e s t h e F i f t h 5 Amendment CR-09-0805 of the United requires that nature. hearing he The on extensive written States provide trial Peak's briefs, order challenges Peak validity Constitution information of court d i d not motion, but Peak's t o § 13-51 t o be reasserts of § a r g u m e n t s , we on note that service Municipal as an finding addressing requirement i n amended evidentiary the parties to file issued a a l l of h i s those Peak's arguments appear requirement Code, incriminating a l l of h i s challenges to the was c o n v i c t e d o f v i o l a t i n g b y v i r t u e a i t meritless. Before not only the r e g i s t r a t i o n said, a t t a c h e d , and then motion, appeal 13-51. he an conduct allowed with exhibits denying because, § of § 13-51(16), of ordinance r e q u i r e s s e r v i c e and i n s p e c t i o n of a l l to challenge i n § 13-51(3), which 1 3 - 5 1 (6) by specific the no. he but also Tuscaloosa 6665, which septic tanks within the drainage b a s i n every t h r e e years and c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o the C i t y that such service and inspection has been completed. 4 Throughout his brief on appeal, Peak makes such s t a t e m e n t s as " t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e s s n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s t h e homeowners t o d i g up t h e i r y a r d s a n d p r o v e t o t h e C i t y t h a t t h e i r s e p t i c t a n k s a r e n o t p o l l u t i n g t h e L a k e [ ] " (Peak's b r i e f , a t pp. 10-11); " t h e C i t y o f T u s c a l o o s a ' s o r d i n a n c e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s governing i n s p e c t i o n and maintenance o f s e p t i c t a n k s " (Peak's b r i e f , a t pp. 14-15); t h e 4 6 CR-09-0805 However, as the C i t y Peak's motion p o i n t e d out in i t s brief t o d i s m i s s , b e c a u s e P e a k was i n response never charged to with " r e g i s t r a t i o n process i n c l u d e s p r o v i d i n g the C i t y w i t h a form that includes information gathered by the commercial contractor who inspects the tank who also provides a c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e C i t y t h a t t h e t a n k has been i n s p e c t e d and pumped as p a r t o f t h a t p r o c e s s " ( P e a k ' s b r i e f , a t p. 29); " [ t ] h e o r d i n a n c e ' s r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t h o m e o w n e r s pump their septic tanks every three years i s inconsistent with the r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f H e a l t h " ( P e a k ' s b r i e f , a t p. 2 9 ) ; " [ t ] h e C i t y , i n p a s s i n g i t s own r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t d i c t a t e s t h a t e v e r y homeowner i n t h e ' d r a i n a g e b a s i n ' have h i s s e p t i c t a n k pumped e v e r y t h r e e y e a r s f r u s t r a t e s t h e w e l l reasoned, c a r e f u l d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f H e a l t h t h a t no s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s h o u l d be i m p o s e d on h o m e o w n e r s " (Peak's b r i e f , a t pp. 3 1 - 3 2 ) ; " [ t ] h e C i t y ' s o r d i n a n c e , i n a r b i t r a r i l y r e q u i r i n g a l l h o m e o w n e r s i n t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n t o d i g up t h e i r yards f o r an [sic] visual inspection by a commercial c o n t r a c t o r w h e r e t h e r e h a s b e e n no r e p o r t o f a f a i l i n g s e p t i c t a n k o r a r e q u e s t f o r s u c h i n s p e c t i o n by t h e homeowner o r l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e owner o [ r ] b u y e r , i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the State Board's d e c i s i o n that i n s p e c t i o n s o f e x i s t i n g s e p t i c t a n k s s h o u l d o n l y be r e q u i r e d u n d e r v e r y l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s " (Peak's b r i e f , a t pp. 3 2 - 3 3 ) ; " t h e C i t y has chosen to impose the drastic requirement that a l l homeowners w i t h i n t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n o f any o f t h e L a k e s o r t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s d i g up t h e i r y a r d s a n d p r o v e t o t h e C i t y t h a t t h e i r s e p t i c t a n k s a r e n o t l e a k i n g " ( P e a k ' s b r i e f , a t p. 4 4 ) ; " t h e r e a r e ' l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e ' means o f d e t e c t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f f a i l i n g s e p t i c t a n k s t h a n h a v i n g a l l homeowners w i t h i n t h e ' d r a i n a g e b a s i n ' d i g up t h e i r y a r d s e v e r y t h r e e years to prove to the C i t y that t h e i r tanks are not l e a k i n g " (Peak's b r i e f , a t pp. 4 8 - 4 9 ) ; and " t h e C i t y c a n n o t b r o a d l y r e q u i r e everyone w i t h i n a c e r t a i n d i s t a n c e from the Lake[] t o d i g up t h e i r y a r d s and have t h e i r septic tanks visually i n s p e c t e d every three years i n order to prove they are not p o l l u t i n g t h e C i t y ' s L a k e " ( P e a k ' s b r i e f , a t p. 5 9 ) . 7 CR-09-0805 or convicted challenge 741 n.3 of v i o l a t i n g that section. § 13-51(6), ( A l a . C r i m . App. and also appears 15-20-26(a), any he provisions, challenges grounds, we So. 894 So. u n d e r w h i c h he was that 2d 104, 751 105, §§ (d), of the have those 738, Code 1975, are violating [Community N o t i f i c a t i o n A c t ] . to review challenge his provisions."), So. 15-20-25, not charged with standing not § i n d i c t e d , the 15-20-23, Ala. ( A l a . 2004); 305 2d ("In a d d i t i o n t o c h a l l e n g i n g argue will v. to 2d and rev'd 380 on v. other Wilkerson, (1974) a to a s s e r t the i n v a l i d i t y of the law, r e g u l a t i o n , or r u l e under by one i s being portion of p r o s e c u t e d [but] a s t a t u t e may ... a c c u s e d has ("'As right he i n criminal prosecutions, constitutional State 378, those the which rule, State, and not regarding A l a . App. general does and 894 standing H o w e v e r , h e was of those p r o v i s i o n s Therefore, 54 to (c), unconstitutional. no 2002) 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 6 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, appellant has J.L.N. See he [a]n accused not plead the affected invalidity of a n o t h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e same s t a t u t e n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o h i s c a s e ... " Byrd (Ala. (quoting v. 16 C . J . S . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law State, C r i m . App. [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 1 1 3 , May 2009); and Taylor 8 1, v. § 84)). 2009] State, See So. 442 3d So. 2d also 128 CR-09-0805 (Ala. Crim. address App. Peak's 1983). Therefore, arguments we to the extent do they not consider or relate t o § 13- 51(6). Standard "An a p p e l l a t e court reviews the l e g i s l a t i v e municipality Attalla App. i n an e x t r e m e l y v . Dean S a u s a g e 2003). and t o adopt struck unless down unreasonable." 2d manner." Co., 889 So. 2 d 5 5 9 , 565 t o be w i t h i n municipalities So. deferential actions of a City 627 ordinances, they Cudd v. C i t y 625, t h e scope o f t h e powers such are valid granted a n d a r e n o t t o be clearly o f Homewood, (1969). of ( A l a .C i v . " [ M ] u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s a r e presumed t o be reasonable, 224 o f Review arbitrary and 284 A l a . 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 , "Municipal ordinances are presumed t o be v a l i d l y a n d p r o p e r l y e n a c t e d a n d u n l e s s invalid on one t o i t s face the burden i s upon the person Burnham v. C i t y of Mobile, (1965). In addition, show i t s invalidity." 659, 6 6 2 , 174 S o . 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 attacking review of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges t o l e g i s l a t i v e is de n o v o . " Richards v. I z z i , 2001). 9 277 A l a . "[o]ur enactments 819 S o . 2 d 2 5 , 29 n.3 ( A l a . CR-09-0805 I. Peak contends t h a t the and was e n f o r c e § 1 3 - 5 1 ( 3 ) b e c a u s e , he acting in function. is City lacked a a proprietary municipality, ordinances and not function, a related a or not a in has enact the City governmental water to i t s residents governmental, municipality to, a u t h o r i t y to s a y s , i n d o i n g so, A c c o r d i n g to Peak, s u p p l y i n g proprietary, the no function authority furtherance of, a of to a enact proprietary function. "A municipal corporation e x i s t i n g u n d e r and the State." 343, 46 So. 577, what authorized." America, 403 "[m]unicipal expressly implied those the So. s t a t e , and state 2d of Birmingham, (1950). has Arrington v. 893, corporations incident indispensably 35 the Gen. 1981). only 10 A l a . App. "derives to Put another or 341, a l l impliedly s u c h p o w e r s as Legislature the or by legislate Contractors powers e x p r e s s l y necessary State, power g r a n t e d expressly exercise to the the no m u n i c i p a l i t y c a n (Ala. them by of municipality Associated may to A either 902 granted i n or City 579 of i t s power from the beyond a creature by v i r t u e of a u t h o r i t y and H u r v i c h v. 2d i s but of way, are necessarily conferred, accomplishment of and the CR-09-0805 objects of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . " 661, 664, 109 municipalities [them] b y upon cities exercise possess of 2d that, the 507, 509 express Dan (1959) . ... "Although as i s c o n f e r r e d upon g r a n t o f power. powers expressly v. 268 A l a . need not p r e d i c a t e i t s every implied powers Wilkins 838 'such power certain that granted Haggerty ( A l a . 1995). Alabama's derive to "[i]t the by the them & Assocs., Indeed, from I n c . , 672 i s elementary i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p o w e r s e x p r e s s l y c o n f e r r e d on them b y the l e g i s l a t u r e , all 836, some s p e c i f i c legislature." So. 2d law,' a m u n i c i p a l i t y action nature So. P h e n i x C i t y v. Putnam, powers m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s have, by reasonably necessary to the carrying implication, out of those powers e x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d , and a l s o , as i n c i d e n t a l powers, a l l powers the City necessary out o f Bessemer v. B i r m i n g h a m E l e c . 27 S o . 2 d 5 6 5 , 573 "A municipality pursuant 475, for carrying important Co., purposes." 248 A l a . 3 4 5 , 354, (1946). has to i t s police 477-78 corporate ( A l a . Crim. the authority powers," App. Congo 1981), to v. and enact State, "one ordinances 409 of So. the 2d most o b j e c t s of m u n i c i p a l government i s the p r e s e r v a t i o n 11 CR-09-0805 of the 27, 30 public health." Spear v. Ward, 199 Ala. 105, 74 (1917). "The preservation of the public health by the i n s t a l l a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e of s a n i t a r y s y s t e m s of s e w e r s a n d c l o s e t s i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d a s one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t d u t i e s of m u n i c i p a l g o v e r n m e n t s , and falls clearly within the police powers of government, s u b j e c t to which the inhabitant and c i t i z e n of the m u n i c i p a l i t y h o l d s h i s i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s t o p r o p e r t y and t o l i b e r t y . " C o n s e q u e n t l y , s t a t u t e s and o r d i n a n c e s d e a l i n g w i t h and r e l a t i n g t o s u c h s u b j e c t s , t o g e t h e r with provisions f o r the enforcement thereof, will be i n d u l g e d by the c o u r t s , w i t h the p r e s u m p t i o n s i n t h e i r f a v o r , as t o t h e i r n e c e s s i t y , p r o p r i e t y , and v a l i d i t y , i n the absence of a showing to the e f f e c t that they are unreasonable, arbitrary, unduly oppressive, or i n c o n s i s t e n t with the legislative p o l i c y of the s t a t e . I t m u s t b e made t o a p p e a r t o the courts that this police power has been m a n i f e s t l y transcended or abused, before c o u r t s w i l l set aside or declare void ordinances which are intended to promote the p u b l i c h e a l t h . "... [T]he Legislature has clothed m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h t h e power and a u t h o r i t y t o p a s s o r d i n a n c e s , b y - l a w s , e t c . The m u n i c i p a l a u t h o r i t i e s to t h i s e x t e n t e x e r c i s e p o l i c e power of the s t a t e ; and they not only have the power, but the law e n j o i n s t h e d u t y a n d o b l i g a t i o n on t h e m , t o p r o m p t l y a b a t e o r remove a l l n u i s a n c e s by w h i c h t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h may be a f f e c t e d , a n d t o t h u s p r o v i d e f o r t h e s a f e t y , c o m f o r t , and c o n v e n i e n c e o f t h e i n h a b i t a n t s . A l l t h e i n h a b i t a n t s t h e r e f o r e h a v e an i n t e r e s t i n s e e i n g t h a t p r o p e r o r d i n a n c e s a r e p a s s e d , as w e l l as 12 So. CR-09-0805 that, when p a s s e d , such ordinances are enforced a g a i n s t a l l , as t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n f o r m t h e r e t o by a f e w may i n f l i c t i n j u r y a n d i l l h e a l t h u p o n t h e many. Spear, 199 A l a . 1 0 5 , 74 S o . a t 2 9 - 3 0 . Section 11-45-1, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "Municipal corporations may f r o m t i m e t o t i m e adopt ordinances and r e s o l u t i o n s not i n c o n s i s t e n t with the laws of the state t o c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t o r d i s c h a r g e t h e powers and d u t i e s conferred by t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s t i t l e and any o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s of law and t o provide f o r the s a f e t y , p r e s e r v e t h e h e a l t h , promote t h e p r o s p e r i t y , and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , a n d may e n f o r c e o b e d i e n c e t o s u c h o r d i n a n c e s . " (Emphasis this added.) state cleanliness shall In addition, have of the c i t y the p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n and as t h e power "[a]ll to maintain o r town w i t h i n thereof," cities and towns i n the health i t slimits insure or other good s a n i t a r y condition i n public places or i n private § 1 1 - 4 7 - 1 3 1 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code M u n i c i p a l i t i e s a l s o have t h e power t o p u r c h a s e , and/or m a i n t a i n p u b l i c - r e c r e a t i o n seq., regulations g o v e r n i n g b o d y may deem n e c e s s a r y t o premises i n t h e c i t i e s and towns." 1975. and w i t h i n § 11-47-130, A l a . Code 1975, have t h e power " [ t ] o adopt such o r d i n a n c e s and the council and A l a . Code 1975. 13 areas. create, See § 11-47-210 et CR-09-0805 In furtherance of the authority to protect public health, municipalities maintain, and operate wholesome w a t e r 1975. "have the waterworks fortheir Similarly, right to establish, or contract purchase, f o r a supply i n h a b i t a n t s . " § 11-50-1, A l a . of Code § 11-50-50, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , p r o v i d e s : "All cities a n d t o w n s may make a l l n e e d f u l p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e d r a i n a g e o f such c i t y o r town, may c o n s t r u c t a n d m a i n t a i n e f f i c i e n t s a n i t a r y a n d stormwater sewers o r sewer systems, e i t h e r w i t h i n o r w i t h o u t t h e c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s o f t h e c i t y o r town, may c o n s t r u c t a n d m a i n t a i n d i t c h e s , s u r f a c e d r a i n s , a q u e d u c t s , a n d c a n a l s a n d may b u i l d a n d c o n s t r u c t underground sewers through private or public property, either within or without the corporate l i m i t s o f such c i t y o r town, b u t j u s t compensation m u s t f i r s t b e made f o r t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y t a k e n , injured, or destroyed." "Any city extend it o r town may or alter i t s sewer t h e mains whenever i n t h e o p i n i o n may b e n e c e s s a r y or expedient Code 1975, and " [ a ] l l have t h e power private system power extend cities to establish or public f o r proper to regulate premises drainage 1 1 - 5 0 - 5 3 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . further of the c i t y or build t o be of this drains connected or sanitation Section 14 state a n d may with and s h a l l of connection provides: o r town t o do s o , " § 1 1 - 5 0 - 5 2 , A l a . and towns t h e manner system and shall require t h e sewer have t h e therewith." § 11-50-54, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , CR-09-0805 " A l l c i t i e s and towns of t h i s s t a t e s h a l l have the power t o p r e s c r i b e the l o c a t i o n and manner i n w h i c h d r a i n a g e f r o m p r i v a t e p r e m i s e s may be d i s p o s e d of and to prescribe the manner i n w h i c h p l u m b i n g s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d and t o f o r b i d the use of the same w h i l e out of order or defective and may discontinue or f o r b i d the use of sinks, pits, cesspools, d r y w e l l s , and s u r f a c e c l o s e t s and may regulate and compel the c o n n e c t i o n of p r i v a t e or p u b l i c p r e m i s e s w i t h the sewer system of the town or city. Most ... " importantly, specifically however, § 11-50-55, Ala. Code 1975, provides: " A l l c i t i e s and towns o f t h i s s t a t e s h a l l have the power t o r e g u l a t e p r i v i e s , water c l o s e t s , and s e p t i c t a n k s and the construction thereof and to c o m p e l t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f same a n d t o r e g u l a t e the c o n n e c t i o n of such water c l o s e t s w i t h such s e p t i c tanks or w i t h the sewerage system of the c i t y or t o w n . ... " (Emphasis It City is clear had control the the from the authority above s t a t u t o r y to sanitation within preserve is added.) and protect source of the adopt the public ordinances to i t s police jurisdiction Lake T u s c a l o o s a City's water i s a p u b l i c - r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a -protect provisions health. and, in turn, in the regulate and in order b o t h because the s u p p l y and Indeed, 15 -- that because the Lake Lake to p r e s e r v e Bingham v. to City and of CR-09-0805 Tuscaloosa, Supreme engage Lake 383 Court, So. i n a commercial water such (Ala. 2007), 731 no at that the City " i s respect both to safety the and t o t h e p r i m a r y public use of i t s t o enact o f h i s argument and enforce o f Selma v. D a l l a s that the City § 13-51 ( 3 ) , Peak County, cites 964 S o . 2 d 12 a n d Town o f M u l g a v . Town o f M a y t o w n , 502 S o . 2 d authority f o r the proposition t o enact furtherance of, a that a m u n i c i p a l i t y has or enforce ordinances proprietary related to, or i n function, such County sought as supplying to i t s inhabitants. In City of Selma, communications tower provide Dallas at the Dallas within the c i t y limits to with i n support as C i t y ( A l a . 1987), water to a structure or to erect a permit consumption." Nonetheless, cases the Alabama requiring recognized use of the lake authority ( A l a . 1 98 0 ) , a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n f o r domestic lacked enterprise standards recreational 544 an o r d i n a n c e expressly l e g a l l y vested with health 542, upholding Tuscaloosa, and 2d o f Selma. erect County courthouse, The p u r p o s e interoperable-communications 16 to located o f t h e tower equipment to a was Dallas CR-09-0805 C o u n t y so t h a t a l l e m e r g e n c y r e s p o n d e r s c o u l d c o m m u n i c a t e with each plan other over g e n e r a t e d by country in attacks, the and wake of furthered frequencies, the by the The the trial enforceable The tower, tower summary j u d g m e n t , C i t y of in part, violated court finding that The two A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a f f i r m e d erection and C o u n t y was against on the of the not the C o u n t y , and operation of the the a governmental against the governmental terrorist and Court the County explained proprietary the ground its the ordinance of the tower County o r d i n a n c e s were endeavor. In that by and, not so between follows: "'The governmental functions of a municipal corporation include the promotion of the public p e a c e , h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and m o r a l s , as w e l l as the e x p e n d i t u r e o f money f o r p u b l i c i m p r o v e m e n t s , the 17 for the C i t y appealed. dichotomy as the zoning judgment, h o l d i n g function functions that County's motion communications in enjoin City's City's zoning t h a t the C i t y of Selma's z o n i n g enforceable 2001, Selma sought t o g r a n t e d the was holding, 11, the Security of therefore, a the D a l l a s County Department of Homeland location ordinances. September the Emergency Management. Dallas of Homeland of the part Alabama Department of construction a radio Congress to enhance homeland s e c u r i t y across S e c u r i t y and and existing CR-09-0805 expense o f which u l t i m a t e l y i s borne by t h e p r o p e r t y owners.' 56 A m . J u r . 2 d M u n i c i p a l C o r p o r a t i o n s § 1 8 3 (2000) (emphasis added). 'A function i s a g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n i f i t i s t h e means b y w h i c h the g o v e r n i n g e n t i t y e x e r c i s e s t h e sovereign power f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f a l l c i t i z e n s . ' Lane [v. Z o n i n g B d . o f A d j u s t m e n t o f C i t y o f T a l l a d e g a ] , 669 S o . 2 d [958,] 959-60 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ] . I t i s 'done by a u t h o r i t y o f l a w .... [ a ] n d ... n o t ... f o r profit I t i s not of a proprietary nature, but under t h e p o l i c e power t o promote t h e h e a l t h and well-being o f t h e p e o p l e . ' Downey v . J a c k s o n , 259 A l a . 1 8 9 , 1 9 3 , 65 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , 827 ( 1 9 5 3 ) . 'The police powers of a city a r e among i t s major governmental functions. Broadly speaking, they extend to a l l appropriate ordinances f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e peace, s a f e t y , h e a l t h , and good morals of the people affected thereby. The g e n e r a l "welfare" i s a generic term often employed i n t h i s connection.' C i t y o f Homewood v . W o f f o r d O i l C o . , 232 A l a . 6 3 4 , 6 3 6 , 1 6 9 S o . 2 8 8 , 290 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . "'Proprietary ... f u n c t i o n s include essentially commercial transactions i n v o l v i n g t h e p u r c h a s e o r s a l e o f goods and services and other activities f o r the commercial benefit of a particular government agency. Whereas i n i t s sovereign r o l e , t h e government c a r r i e s out unique governmental functions f o r the benefit o f the whole public, i n i t s proprietary capacity the government's activities are analogous t o those of a p r i v a t e concern.' "Federal D e p o s i t I n s . Corp. v. H a r r i s o n , 735 F . 2 d 408, 411 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1984) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . "Examples o f governmental f u n c t i o n s i n cases challenging the entity's operating authority include a 'sanitary l a n d f i l l garbage d i s p o s a l ' expressly a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e , operated by a m u n i c i p a l i t y , 18 CR-09-0805 [ C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v . ] S c o g i n , [269 A l a . 6 7 9 , 688, 115 So. 2 d 5 0 5 , 512 (Ala. 1959)]; the o p e r a t i o n , expressly a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e , of o a baseball diamond by the 'Park and Recreation Board of the C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , ' Downey, s u p r a ; the l o c a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , and o p e r a t i o n by a c o u n t y b o a r d o f education of a f a c i l i t y i n which to s t o r e , r e p a i r , and m a i n t a i n s c h o o l p r o p e r t y , s u c h as s c h o o l b u s e s and s u p p l i e s , [Lauderdale C o u n t y Bd. o f Ed. v.] Alexander, [269 Ala. 79, 110 So. 2d 911 (Ala. 1959)]; the operation, expressly authorized by s t a t u t e , of a garbage i n c i n e r a t o r by the C i t y of B e s s e m e r , C i t y o f B e s s e m e r v . A b b o t t , 212 A l a . 4 7 2 , 103 So. 446 (1925); the c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of a j a i l by the county, Lane, s u p r a ; the use by a municipality of a building as a warehouse, C u n n i n g h a m [ v . C i t y o f A t t a l l a , 918 So. 2 d 119 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ; and the c h o i c e of a l o c a t i o n f o r a new s c h o o l b u i l d i n g b y a c i t y b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n , A l v e s [v. B o a r d o f Educ. f o r C i t y of G u n t e r s v i l l e , 922 So. 2 d 129 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ] . C f . S t a t e e x r e l . H y l a n d v . B a u m h a u e r , 244 A l a . 1, 8, 12 So. 2d 3 2 6 , 330 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ('A f i r e d e p a r t m e n t , w h e n o r g a n i z e d and f u n c t i o n i n g , i s p e r f o r m i n g a g o v e r n m e n t a l r a t h e r than a p r o p r i e t a r y f u n c t i o n . ' ) . "On t h e o t h e r h a n d , 'when a c i t y i s e n g a g e d i n the business of s u p p l y i n g f o r compensation water s e r v i c e to the people, w i t h i n i t s l a w f u l power, i t i s engaged i n a p r o p r i e t a r y b u s i n e s s . ' [Water Works Bd. o f C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v.] S t e p h e n s , 262 Ala. [ 2 0 3 , ] 2 0 9 , 78 So. 2 d [ 2 6 7 , ] 272 (1955)] (emphasis added). Similarly, the operation of a sewage-disposal plant i s , f o r zoning purposes, a proprietary function. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , [25 A l a . 4 3 6 , 55 So. 2 d 196 (1951)]." City of In license Selma, 964 So. 2d at 19-20. Town o f M u l g a , t h e Town o f M a y t o w n e n a c t e d ordinance imposing an 19 excise tax on a l l a businessbusinesses CR-09-0805 engaged i n t h e manufacture o r d i s t r i b u t i o n its corporate limits. T h e Town of gasoline of Mulga, which owned a n d operated a g a s o l i n e - d i s t r i b u t i o n system that provided to customers w i t h i n the corporate to purchase a business the ordinance. seeking Maytown, declaring The t r i a l and Mulga gasoline o f Maytown, refused l i c e n s e and t o pay the e x c i s e t a x under Maytown f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a judgment ordinance. limits within court that Mulga entered appealed. a f f i r m e d t h e judgment, h o l d i n g The i n the c i r c u i t was subject a judgment Alabama court to the i n favor Supreme of Court that, i n providing gasoline to c u s t o m e r s i n M a y t o w n , M u l g a was e n g a g e d i n a p r o p r i e t a r y , n o t a governmental, f u n c t i o n and, thus, ordinance j u s t as any o t h e r the specifically Court was s u b j e c t business would be. t o Maytown's In doing so, noted: "'Where a m u n i c i p a l i t y e n g a g e s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f f u r n i s h i n g e l e c t r i c i t y , l i g h t s , water, o r gas t o t h e p u b l i c , i t i s not then discharging or e x e r c i s i n g governmental f u n c t i o n s o r powers, b u t i s e x e r c i s i n g proprietary or business powers, and as t o such business i t i s g o v e r n e d b y t h e same r u l e s o f l a w which are applicable to ordinary business corporations.'" Town o f M u l g a , v. 795 Northwest 502 S o . 2 d a t 734 G a s . D i s t . , 277 A l a . (1964)). 20 (quoting Town o f H a c k l e b u r g 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 , 170 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , CR-09-0805 Numerous other cases have likewise held that, i n f u r n i s h i n g water t o i t s i n h a b i t a n t s , a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s engaged i n a p r o p r i e t a r y , not a governmental, f u n c t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , is subject t o t h e same businesses. 585, rules of law applicable See, e.g., C i t y 5 9 1 , 1 0 9 S o . 2 d 6 9 2 , 697 (1959) ordinary v. Parham, of Decatur to 268 A l a . ("The rule i s settled t h a t when a m u n i c i p a l i t y e n g a g e s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f f u r n i s h i n g electricity, then discharging powers, as lights, or water, e t c . ,t o t h e p u b l i c , exercising governmental but i s exercising proprietary t o such b u s i n e s s i t i s governed i t i s not functions o r b u s i n e s s powers and b y t h e same rules of law which are a p p l i c a b l e t o ordinary business corporations Montgomery v. C i t y o f A t h e n s , 553 that (1934) a ("It i s further city electric o r town lights, governmental powers b u s i n e s s powers, applicable to A l a . 322, established persons e t c . , i s not functions, or ordinary business."); 60 So. i n this i n the business of and i t i s governed engaged i n a l i k e 180 or " ) ; 229 A l a . 1 4 9 , 1 5 2 , 155 So. 5 5 1 , engaging water, or but jurisdiction furnishing i n the exercise of proprietary b y t h e same r u l e s business 21 903 (1913) ("'A or of law corporations C i t y o f Montgomery v. 900, of Greene, municipal CR-09-0805 corporation, so i n the exercise Encyc. which capacity of of the Law, denied, a private of 404."); as 139 a i t s inhabitants local and Ala. general 36 of 614, proposition, of since such a of the corporation, and or governmental As by right Peak i n h i s b r i e f , governmental proprietary functions a century contract comes w i t h i n i l l u s t r a t e d by between to 615 that the for a not Am. v. does in & the Eng., Birmingham (1904) ("It i t is within the business is not to c a s e s above, and a d i s t i n c t i o n has functions supply be or of is the power."). legislative municipality 30 Birmingham So. water, and sovereignty.' City 531, with corporation, power powers a of power W a t e r w o r k s Co., not supplies water, proprietary classed other as cases cited h i s t o r i c a l l y b e e n made of of a m u n i c i p a l i t y . a municipality As explained and almost ago: "Municipal corporations b o t h p o s s e s s and exercise two k i n d s o f f u n c t i o n s a n d p o w e r s , one g o v e r n m e n t a l and the o t h e r p r o p r i e t a r y or b u s i n e s s . The one i s f o r the purpose of g o v e r n i n g the inhabitants of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and the o t h e r f o r m a k i n g c o n t r a c t s for the benefit of the municipality and its inhabitants. The one i s a p a r t of the sovereign power of the s t a t e , d e l e g a t e d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . The other is for the most part, though not e x c l u s i v e l y nor n e c e s s a r i l y , i n h e r e n t , incidental and implied power. Bessemer City v. Bessemer W a t e r w o r k s , 152 A l a . 3 9 1 , 44 S o u t h . 663 [(1907)]; 22 a CR-09-0805 G r e e n v i l l e C i t y v. G r e e n v i l l e Waterworks, 125 A l a . 6 2 5 , 27 S o u t h . 764 [ ( 1 9 0 0 ) ] ; W e l l e r v . G a d s d e n , 141 Ala. 6 4 2 , 37 S o [ ] . 6 8 2 , 3 A n n . C a s . 981 [[ ( 1 9 0 4 ) ] ; 1 (1904)]; D i l l . Mun. C o r p s . §§ 2 6 , 2 7 , 6 6 . I n t h e e x e r c i s e o f the p o w e r s o f t h e one c l a s s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e governed by those sovereign. In the exercise of the other they a r e c o n t r o l l e d by the r u l e s and laws which govern business corporations and i n d i v i d u a l s in acting and c o n t r a c t i n g f o r the benefit of themselves. G r e g s t e n v . C h i c a g o , 1 4 5 I l l . 4 5 1 , 34 N.E. 4 2 6 , 36 Am. S t . R e p . 4 9 6 [ ( 1 8 9 3 ) ] ; Illinois Trust & S a v i n g s Co. v . C i t y o f A r k a n s a s C i t y , 7 6 F [ ] . 2 8 2 , 22 C.C.A. 1 7 1 , 34 L.R.A. 518 [ ( 1 8 9 6 ) ] . In the e x e r c i s e o f governmental powers and f u n c t i o n s , a municipal corporation i s bound, p r o h i b i t e d , and i n h i b i t e d b y t h e same c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s o r Bill of Rights that the state or Legislature i s bound by, because t o t h i s e x t e n t and purpose i t i s a part of the state. But i n the exercise of i t s proprietary and business powers, and i n the discharge of such functions, i t i s bound, p r o h i b i t e d , i n h i b i t e d , a u t h o r i z e d , and r e s t r a i n e d by the same c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y provisions which apply to other business corporations and individuals i n the conduct of their private affairs." Town o f New D e c a t u r v . A m e r i c a n 5 2 9 - 3 0 , 58 S o . 6 1 3 , 6 2 4 - 2 5 T e l . & T e l . Co., 176 A l a . 492, (1912) (Mayfield, J., dissenting). "'A m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n i n t h e p u r s u i t o f i t s p r o p r i e t a r y f u n c t i o n s i s n o t , however, e q u i v a l e n t t o a private corporation i n a l l respects. A municipal corporation i s permitted to enter the commercial field solely to promote the welfare of i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s , a n d ' i s no l e s s a g o v e r n m e n t b e c a u s e i t owns a n d o p e r a t e s i t s own w a t e r s y s t e m . ' " 23 CR-09-0805 O'Fallon 356 Dev. N.E.2d Tribune Co. v . C i t y o f O ' F a l l o n , 1293, Co., 307 proprietary public Ill. the i t may of Bessemer Ala. 411, To 413, be or 199 county function to when operated "A for though governmental for the some function." the d i c h o t o m y has been u s e d t o h o l d that out municipality, in to a engaged proprietary the cases c i t e d his second municipality is opposed governmental/proprietary to addition, a governmental function, tax a in the City been a 24 engaged in used proprietary see Town past, dichotomy has p r o v i d e d immunity municipalities of municipality function, in see and has second engaged to a governmental In in therein, may liability (1923)). brief, points a supra. tort v. (1941). municipality Mulga, Chicago 240 one as 353, do n o t a p p l y t o a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y , s u c h or function 348, County, Peak and the 90 for Jefferson as opposed that Bd. 816 as hold city a of 86, function 815, supra, Selma, a public Personnel City N.E. of So. sure, zoning ordinances a 139 strictly governmental/proprietary as 608, a be v. (quoting power less not City (1976) 595, function i s none purposes 1298 43 I l l . A p p . 3 d of the from governmental CR-09-0805 functions but functions, see the not to municipalities C i t y of Selma, supra engaged (noting the governmental/proprietary-function determining tort liability governmental/proprietary strip a municipality protect to, the or public are of of health, in furtherance Clair County of, City, [Ms. 1080403, and B e n s o n v. C i t y of 443 (1940) water (both and/or sewer to Home B u i l d e r s upholding never enact 10, Ass'n been 240 to ordinances City 3d Ala. and to relate function. ordinances owned the held So. Andalusia, systems However, v. 2010] municipal of for ordinances a proprietary September 2010), has e v e n when t h o s e St. abolishment dichotomy authority e.g., proprietary municipalities). dichotomy the in of See, Pell (Ala. 99, 195 So. relating operated to by municipalities). Although its in we agree with r e s i d e n t s , the enacting engaging in powers. 13-51(3), a governmental 445, 13 operation So. of e.g., 2d 664, in providing water C i t y i s engaging i n a p r o p r i e t a r y § See, Peak t h a t , and any function M i t c h e l l v. 667 a utility, (1943) the other city 25 ordinance, by virtue function, the of City 244 ("While ownership i s engaged the in a is i t s police C i t y of M o b i l e , in to Ala. 442, and proprietary CR-09-0805 enterprise; in acts legislative in a prescribing g o v e r n i n g body i s the and As subject the to their lawful rates, capacity. In chosen agency of control I d a h o Supreme C o u r t the both the governing body capacities, the people through democratic aptly of the city processes."). explained: " ' T h e r e i s no inconsistency between the h o l d i n g h e r e i n t h a t i n the o p e r a t i o n of a public utility the village exercises a p r o p r i e t a r y f u n c t i o n , and t h e h o l d i n g that i n r e q u i r i n g c o n n e c t i o n s t o be made w i t h the sewage s y s t e m the v i l l a g e i s e x e r c i s i n g i t s p o l i c e power, w h i c h i s a g o v e r n m e n t a l function. The fact that an ordinance, providing for the establishment and operation o f a m u n i c i p a l w a t e r and sewage s y s t e m , may a l s o c o n t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the police power, is not conflicting, i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r an i m p r o p e r c o m i n g l i n g o f the two recognized functions of a municipality. The one i s regarded as c o m p l i m e n t a r y of the o t h e r . I f the water and sewage s y s t e m were p r i v a t e l y owned and o p e r a t e d , u n q u e s t i o n a b l y the municipality c o u l d by o r d i n a n c e r e g u l a t e t h e operation i n the i n t e r e s t of p u b l i c h e a l t h , and, in so d o i n g , r e q u i r e r e s i d e n t s t o c o n n e c t w i t h and use t h e s y s t e m . ' " L o o m i s v. City 1275 (1991) 48, 63, 256 of Hailey, (quoting P.2d 119 Idaho S c h m i d t v. 515, 524 434, 807 P.2d V i l l a g e of K i m b e r l y , (1953)). 26 437, See also 74 1272, Idaho Rupp v. CR-09-0805 Grantsville fulfilling C i t y , 610 a proprietary municipality mandate also authority, enact contrary t h e new ( U t a h 1980) sewer enforce § ("[W]hile the waterworks i t s governmental the powers engaging Therefore, the statutory 13-51(3), and to system.") in a i t s s t a t u t o r y p o l i c e powers, function. pursuant to the and n.6 § 1 3 - 5 1 ( 3 ) , t h e C i t y was function within in a proprietary 341 employing i n enacting governmental to is 338, role i n operating connection with Here, not P.2d C i t y had provisions Peak's and cited argument the above, to the i s meritless. II. Peak a l s o contends t h a t § 13-51(3) says, i t i s preempted by s t a t e law. i s i n v a l i d because, Specifically, Peak he argues t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n d i c a t e d an i n t e n t t o p r e e m p t t h e e n t i r e field of wastewater regulation by providing a comprehensive scheme f o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n of s e p t i c t a n k s by b o t h the Alabama Onsite see 1975, Wastewater Board, § 34-21A-1 e t seq., and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e by t h a t b o a r d , and by the S t a t e 1, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , et seq., regulations Board of Health, e t seq., and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 27 Ala. Code promulgated see § 22-26¬ regulations CR-09-0805 promulgated conflict with Article that that that Board, regulatory general and that § 13-51 i s in corporation laws of t h i s 1975, p r o v i d e s shall direct scheme. I V , § 89, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, "[t]he legislature municipal Code by provides n o t have power t o a u t h o r i z e any t o p a s s any laws i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the state." that As n o t e d above, § 11-45-1, A l a . "[m]unicipal corporations may from time t o time adopt o r d i n a n c e s and r e s o l u t i o n s not i n c o n s i s t e n t with the laws of the s t a t e . " ... i s expressly any ordinance State." prohibited that Simply under Alabama i s inconsistent Alabama D i s p o s a l by the Alabama with law from adopting the laws of this L.L.C. v. Town Solutions-Landfill, o f L o w n d e s b o r o , 837 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 , 3 0 1 explained put, "[a] m u n i c i p a l i t y Supreme A s s ' n , I n c . v. C i t y o f Montgomery, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . Court i n Alabama 24 S o . 3 d 1 0 8 5 Recycling ( A l a . 2009) : " ' " ' W h e t h e r an o r d i n a n c e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e general l a w o f t h e S t a t e i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y whether the municipal law p r o h i b i t s anything which the State law s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r m i t s . ' " ' G i b s o n v. C i t y o f A l e x a n d e r C i t y , 779 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g L a n i e r v . C i t y o f N e w t o n , 518 S o . 2 d 40, 43 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n C o n g o v . S t a t e , 409 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 , 478 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . In Lanier v. C i t y o f Newton, this Court addressed ' i n c o n s i s t e n c y ' w i t h regard t o a c o n f l i c t between a s t a t u t e a n d an o r d i n a n c e , stating: '"Inconsistent" i s d e f i n e d b y B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 7 9 ) 28 As CR-09-0805 as " m u t u a l l y r e p u g n a n t o r c o n t r a d i c t o r y ; contrary, t h e one t o t h e o t h e r , so t h a t b o t h c a n n o t s t a n d , b u t t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e one i m p l i e s the a b r o g a t i o n o r abandonment o f t h e o t h e r . " It implies " c o n t r a d i c t i o n -- q u a l i t i e s w h i c h cannot coexist -- n o t m e r e l y a lack of uniformity in d e t a i l s . " C i t y o f Montgomery v. B a r e f i e l d , 1 A l a . A p p . 5 1 5 , 5 2 3 , 56 S o . 2 6 0 , 262 ( 1 9 1 1 ) . ' 518 S o . 2 d at 43." 29 CR-09-0805 24 So. 3d at 1088-89. 5 "An ordinance which merely enlarges We note t h a t Peak appears to argue t h a t t h i s i s not the c o r r e c t standard f o r determining whether a municipal ordinance c o n f l i c t s w i t h s t a t e law, and t h a t a m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e may, i n f a c t , be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h s t a t e l a w e v e n i f i t d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t what s t a t e law e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t s . He c i t e s i n h i s b r i e f numerous c a s e s i n w h i c h Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have f o u n d a c o n f l i c t between a m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e and a s t a t e law. However, a l l of t h o s e c a s e s d i d , c o n t r a r y t o Peak's argument, f o l l o w the g e n e r a l law s t a t e d above, and d i d i n v o l v e o r d i n a n c e s t h a t p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t t h a t was e x p r e s s l y allowed by state law. See, e.g., City of Mobile v. GarrettM o n t g o m e r y , I n c . , 281 A l a . 2 0 4 , 201 So. 2 d 42 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a m u n i c i p a l ordinance c r e a t i n g a m u n i c i p a l board w i t h the a u t h o r i t y to examine the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of plumbers, l i c e n s e those plumbers meeting certain qualifications, and, i f n e c e s s a r y , r e v o k e l i c e n s e s o f p l u m b e r s , was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h state law that provided i t s own regulatory scheme for examining the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of plumbers, l i c e n s i n g plumbers, and, i f n e c e s s a r y , r e v o k i n g t h e l i c e n s e s o f p l u m b e r s ) ; B u s c h J e w e l r y Co. v . C i t y o f B e s s e m e r , 269 A l a . 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 - 8 7 , 112 So. 2d 344, 347-50 (1959) ( h o l d i n g , i n p a r t , t h a t a municipal ordinance p r o h i b i t i n g optometrists from working in "any w h o l e s a l e o r r e t a i l e s t a b l i s h m e n t " was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s t a t e law t h a t " e x p r e s s l y a l l o w [ e d ] a p e r s o n , f i r m or c o r p o r a t i o n t o own a n d o p e r a t e a s t o r e o r b u s i n e s s e s t a b l i s h m e n t w h e r e i n e y e s are examined or glasses fitted, as long as the store, business, or optometric department is in charge of an o p t o m e t r i s t l i c e n s e d by t h e s t a t e " ) ; A l a b a m a D i s p o s a l , s u p r a (holding that a municipal ordinance p r o h i b i t i n g l a n d f i l l s w i t h i n the c i t y ' s c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s and i t s p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n c o n f l i c t e d w i t h a State s t a t u t e to the extent t h a t the c i t y ' s ordinance purported to regulate a solid-waste l a n d f i l l outside t h e c i t y ' s c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s ) ; and C i t y o f M o b i l e v. M a d i s o n , 40 A l a . A p p . 713, 715, 122 So. 2 d 5 4 0 , 541 (1960) (holding that a m u n i c i p a l ordinance making i t unlawful to t r a n s p o r t i n a m o t o r v e h i c l e m o r e t h a n one case of a l c o h o l without a municipal permit was inconsistent with state law that expressly permits "an adult [to] transport beer or malt b e v e r a g e s upon the s t r e e t s of the C i t y of M o b i l e i n q u a n t i t i e s 5 30 CR-09-0805 upon t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a s t a t u t e b y r e q u i r i n g more than the statute requires statute limits the terms." Congo v. S t a t e , 1981) (emphasis create a conflict, because the Alabama requirement "Mere a n d we c a n n o t Act i s 24 silent So. to a municipal no conflict f o r a l l cases 4 0 9 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 , 478 added). Recycling, objection creates (1917) (citing say a c o n f l i c t the 3d a t 1090. 56 S o . 6 0 3 , 605 field, other Likewise, Gann would effect.'" v. C i t y App. 2009) greater 377 i n turn than S.C. Moreover, touch upon Shores, 355, Bugsy's, 'one c a s e , ' do n o t merely speaks." " i t i s no of a 'complementary Standard Chem. 2 A l a . App. the 660 subject S.E.2d I n c . v. C i t y and v i o l a t e 31 454, i n t e n t t h a t no i n any 29 S o . 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 361, 386 " ' [ t ] o p r e e m p t an e n t i r e (quoting F o o t h i l l s Brewing Concern, Greenville, (quoting of Gulf App. 2 0 1 A l a . 8 9 , 9 2 , 77 S o . 3 8 3 , v . Town o f L i n e v i l l e , (1911)). may i t s own exists ordinance " a n a c t m u s t make m a n i f e s t a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment the ordinance not i n contravention of Troy, Turner to differences i n detail where the end s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n & O i l Co. v . C i t y unless (Ala. Crim. state law that i t a f f o r d s a d d i t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n to restrictions way."'" ( A l a . Crim. I n c . v. C i t y o f 264, of Myrtle no S t a t e 267 (2008) Beach, law"). 340 CR-09-0805 S.C. 8 7 , 94, 530 S.E.2d 8 9 0 , 893 regulation i na certain f i e l d of Davenport, "'there 790 N.W.2d a field statement of regulations from the 569, 585-86 regulation we and find no 2010). Rather, of legislative intent to authorities, or a desire to 2 d a t 586 ( q u o t i n g 539 (Iowa no c o n f l i c t preemption between of the state field regulations cited b y Peak expressly i n the drainage basin law and § 13septic what § 13-51(3) the City a septic o f Lake tank or administrative permit i.e., not registering with City of 2008)). of Nothing i n any o f t h e s t a t u t e s located uniform 790 N.W. regulation. prohibits, have 7 5 5 N.W.2d 5 3 3 , D a v e n p o r t v . Seymour, Here, H e n s l e r v. C i t y (Iowa by l o c a l legislature's statewide.'" "[E]xtensive i s n o t enough." m u s t b e some c l e a r e x p r e s s i o n preempt 51(3) (2000))). Tuscaloosa, tank n o r d o we f i n d anything i n those statutes and administrative regulations showing t o preempt the a clear entire evident, field upon of intent regulation. the relevant Rather, of septic tanks thereto. 32 by the i t statutes r e g u l a t i o n s , t h a t § 13-51(3) s i m p l y regulation complementary of legislative o f wastewater examination administrative the expression i s and e n l a r g e s on state and i s CR-09-0805 Section 34-21A-1, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "The A l a b a m a O n s i t e W a s t e w a t e r B o a r d i s c r e a t e d to examine, l i c e n s e , and r e g u l a t e p e r s o n s engaged i n the manufacture, installation, or servicing of onsite sewage systems in Alabama. As more r e s i d e n c e s are b u i l t i n r u r a l a r e a s where p u b l i c sewer hookups and centralized sewage treatment s y s t e m s a r e o f t e n u n a v a i l a b l e , many p r o p e r t y o w n e r s m u s t r e l y on o n s i t e sewage s y s t e m s , s u c h as s e p t i c systems, t o h a n d l e r e s i d e n t i a l waste and sewage. The improper manufacture, installation, service, c l e a n i n g , and m a i n t e n a n c e o f o n s i t e sewage e q u i p m e n t and t r e a t m e n t systems can c o n t a m i n a t e and p o l l u t e the e n v i r o n m e n t and pose s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o p u b l i c h e a l t h and the r u r a l environment. This board i s created to e s t a b l i s h the q u a l i f i c a t i o n l e v e l s f o r those engaged i n the manufacture, installation, s e r v i c i n g , o r c l e a n i n g o f o n s i t e sewage s y s t e m s and equipment in Alabama and promote the proper m a n u f a c t u r e , i n s t a l l a t i o n , and s e r v i c i n g of o n s i t e sewage s y s t e m s . " (Emphasis include added.) the licensing installation, and -13 The duties of Code 1975; requirements, such as licensure, 34-21A-7, establishment those engaged i n the o r s e r v i c i n g o f s e p t i c t a n k s , §§ Ala. §§ of the O n s i t e Wastewater of the manufacture, 34-21A-7, e s t a b l i s h m e n t of training and -14, and procedures to for and such 1975; A l a . Code investigate the resolve c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t l i c e n s e e s , § 34-21A-22, A l a . Code 1975; the of establishment of c r i t e r i a such l i c e n s e s , f o r the suspension or § 34-21A-21. The 33 -12, eligibility examinations, -15, Board and revocation O n s i t e Wastewater Board i s CR-09-0805 also given the regulations in authority furtherance to of promulgate i t s duties, § Code 1975. Those r e g u l a t i o n s are found 628-X-1 e t seq. The is to clearly regulate service septic septic tanks on administrative 34-21A-9, Ala. i n A l a . Admin. Code r . (2010). s t a t e d purpose of the Onsite Wastewater those persons tanks, not their those property, 21A-10, A l a . Code 1975, from the l i c e n s i n g who manufacture, persons such as who s p e c i f i c a l l y excludes install, own Peak. Board or and operate Indeed, § 34- property owners r e g u l a t i o n s of the Onsite Wastewater Board: "The licensing requirements of t h i s chapter shall not apply t o owners of p r o p e r t y for the purpose of installing, cleaning, servicing, or m a i n t a i n i n g an o n s i t e s e w a g e s y s t e m on t h e i r own p r o p e r t y w i t h a one-family or two-family r e s i d e n c e u s e d as t h e i r p r i m a r y residence so l o n g as the o w n e r s o f t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h an o n s i t e sewage s y s t e m complete a l l i n s t a l l a t i o n , c l e a n i n g , s e r v i c i n g , or maintenance themselves, without help, at their primary residence." (Emphasis added.) with Thus, § 13-51(3) i s c l e a r l y not i n c o n f l i c t or preempted by administrative Wastewater) r. § 34-21A-1 e t regulations 628-X-1 e t in seq. 34 seq. Ala. (2010). or the Admin. corresponding Code (Onsite CR-09-0805 Section 22-26-1 et sewage collection, Section 22-26-1, A l a . seq., treatment, Code 1975, Ala. and Code 1975, disposal deals with facilities. provides: " I t s h a l l be u n l a w f u l and s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a m i s d e m e a n o r t o b u i l d , m a i n t a i n o r u s e an i n s a n i t a r y sewage c o l l e c t i o n , t r e a t m e n t and d i s p o s a l facility o r one t h a t i s o r i s l i k e l y t o b e c o m e a m e n a c e t o the public health anywhere within the state, i n c l u d i n g plumbing f a c i l i t i e s , p r i v i e s , s e p t i c tank systems, other private collection and disposal systems, sewer l i n e s , p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , m u n i c i p a l , community, s u b d i v i s i o n or o t h e r t r e a t m e n t p l a n t and disposal units, but excluding plumbing within s t r u c t u r e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n of municipal corporations and regulated by the municipal corporation." Section 2 2 - 2 6 - 4 , A l a . Code 1975, issuance of permits for the further provides installation "[t]he plumbing of that within s t r u c t u r e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n corporations, and be of functions Ala. State Code 1975, Board of the inspection municipal also and approval corporations." provides, in relevant of of municipal same, Section part, 22-26-2, that Health " s h a l l r e q u i r e e v e r y p e r s o n ... o w n i n g o r o c c u p y i n g p r o p e r t y w i t h i n the s t a t e , to i n s t a l l the required plumbing facilities, type and number o f sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities c o n f o r m i n g t o r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of the State Board of Health and/or county boards of h e a l t h and r e q u i r e c o n n e c t i o n to a s a n i t a r y sewer c o n f o r m i n g to r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of the S t a t e B o a r d of Health 35 shall the CR-09-0805 and/or county b o a r d s of h e a l t h where s a n i t a r y sewers are a v a i l a b l e and are not r e g u l a t e d by the municipal corporation, or to dispose of sewage in such s a n i t a r y m a n n e r as s h a l l be a p p r o v e d b y t h e State Board of Health. A l l r e q u i r e d sewage t r e a t m e n t and d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s s h a l l conform i n every respect with the specifications, rules and regulations applying to these facilities made, a d o p t e d and p r o m u l g a t e d by the State Board of Health and/or c o u n t y b o a r d s o f h e a l t h a n d s h a l l be m a i n t a i n e d a s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s a i d r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . " Further, " A l l p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a p p l y i n g t o sewage c o l l e c t i o n , t r e a t m e n t a n d d i s p o s a l s h a l l be first s u b m i t t e d to the State Board of H e a l t h and/or county boards of h e a l t h f o r approval before construction ... [and] said plans and specifications shall be approved i f i n conformance w i t h s a i d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and the r e q u i r e d p e r m i t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f Health .... No person, firm, corporation or municipal corporation shall begin construction without said approval, and a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s section shall c o n s t i t u t e a m i s d e m e a n o r , p u n i s h a b l e , on c o n v i c t i o n , by a f i n e of not t o e x c e e d $500.00." § 22-26-3, A l a . In Code furtherance promulgated 1975. of extensive i t s duties, the State Board of Health regulations regarding "onsite sewage (Department of P u b l i c Health) disposal." See A l a . Admin. Code r. et seq. 420-3-1 things as installing (2010). requiring property or Those regulations owners t o r e p a i r i n g septic tanks, 36 obtain see include permits such before A l a . Admin. Code r. CR-09-0805 420-3-1-.08; s e t t i n g which septic tanks limitations can be on the type installed, see o f p r o p e r t i e s on A l a . A d m i n . Code 4 2 0 - 3 - 1 - . 0 9 , and A l a . A d m i n . Code r . 420-3-1-.71 t h r o u g h setting see d e s i g n and Ala. technical Admin. Code specifications r. 420-3-1-.47 recommending s e r v i c i n g i n t e r v a l s , 3-1-.05(2). Ala. Moreover, Admin. Code r . as the tanks, and see A l a . A d m i n . Code r . 420- points through out in i t s brief, provides: "(1) A p p r o v a l o f a l o t , s u b d i v i s i o n , building d e v e l o p m e n t o r method o f sewage d i s p o s a l by the Board or i t s agent does not c o n s t i t u t e or imply a p p r o v a l by a m u n i c i p a l i t y , county or o t h e r e n t i t y having p l a n n i n g , zoning or other l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , a p p r o v a l of a l i k e p l a n by a n o t h e r e n t i t y does not negate the requirement f o r a p p r o v a l o f an OSS [ o n s i t e sewage t r e a t m e n t and d i s p o s a l system] by the Board or i t s agent. " ( a ) LHDs [ l o c a l h e a l t h d e p a r t m e n t s ] may regulate according to another j u r i s d i c t i o n ' s more s t r i n g e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s , provided that a properly executed memorandum o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g is forwarded t h r o u g h t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c h a i n o f command f o r r e v i e w by t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s O f f i c e o f General Counsel and i s a p p r o v e d by the State Health Officer. "(b) LHDs may also cooperate with o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n d e a l i n g w i t h common areas of r e g u l a t i o n t h a t are s u b j e c t to a c o o r d i n a t e d e f f o r t , s u c h as t h e e x i s t e n c e of zoning requirements. T h i s s h o u l d be b y a memorandum o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , forwarded 37 .86; .5l; City 420-3-1-.104, for septic r. CR-09-0805 through the environmental chain f o r legal review and approval by the State Health Officer." (Emphasis added.) Peak m a i n t a i n s 26-1 et that by s p e c i f i c a l l y s e q . , A l a . Code located within corporations" the to 1975, "plumbing police be carving within jurisdiction regulated by o u t i n § 22¬ structures of municipal municipalities, the legislature e v i d e n c e d an i n t e n t t o p r e e m p t t h e e n t i r e f i e l d o f septic-tank r e g u l a t i o n and t o l i m i t a m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s to regulating 13-51(3) only "plumbing i s ,thus, i n conflict He a l s o argues that by State the clearly a statewide of Health's an i n t e n t uniform that referencing "more jurisdictions refers "in areas health." not on t h e p a r t stringent otherwise (Peak's limited scheme a t p. by local 14.) to create tanks, regulation, 420-3-1-.104 jurisdiction regulated 38 r. tanks regulations for septic requirements" to local reply brief, of septic of wastewater § authority. of the State i n A l a . A d m i n . Code only and t h a t administrative regulatory the language that regulation thereby preempting the e n t i r e f i e l d and facilities," with the extensive Board express within authority of other requirements departments of CR-09-0805 We Code find 1975, strained, Peak's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 22-26-1 e t s e q . , A l a . and at A l a . Admin. Code r. 420-3-1 et seq. t o be best. "'In determining legislative intent, statutes are, where p o s s i b l e , construed i n harmony with s t a t u t e s e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e o f e n a c t m e n t , so t h a t each i s a f f o r d e d a f i e l d of operation.' S u l l i v a n v. S t a t e e x r e l . A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a , 472 S o . 2d 9 7 0 , 973 ( A l a . 1985). ' I t i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e of statutory construction that i n enacting the s t a t u t e the l e g i s l a t u r e had f u l l knowledge and information as to prior and existing law and l e g i s l a t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e s t a t u t e . ' Miller v . S t a t e , 3 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 131 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ) . '[I]n cases of c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t u t e s o n t h e same subject, the l a t e s t expression of the l e g i s l a t u r e i s t h e l a w . Where a c o n f l i c t e x i s t s b e t w e e n s t a t u t e s , the l a s t e n a c t m e n t must t a k e p r e c e d e n c e . ' [Baldwin C o u n t y v.] J e n k i n s , 494 S o . 2 d [ 5 8 4 , ] 588 [(Ala. 1986)] ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " Hatcher v. State, 1989). At the time originally which, we existence § enacted So. 2d 905, § 22-26-1 i n 1969, to regulate § that ( A l a . Crim. gives -- was et administrative seq., already the l e g i s l a t u r e Ala. regulations Code 1975, promulgated 39 1975 was -¬ m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the was i n effect. aware o f t h e o f § 1 1 - 5 0 - 5 5 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , a n d we m u s t 22-26-1, App. 1975, 1 1 - 5 0 - 5 5 , A l a . Code s e p t i c tanks must presume 906-07 e t s e q . , A l a . Code as n o t e d above, s p e c i f i c a l l y authority Thus, 547 as well pursuant construe as the to the CR-09-0805 authority provided doing we so, find municipalities authority regulate no conflict to 22-26-1 state leaving does t o own to harmony w i t h between the nothing municipality's not speak to the to the Section 22-26-1 statute, and to do, as or a criminal i t c a n n o t be e v i d e n c e of the more than regulate expressly plumbing municipality's speaks to give within police septic tanks et to the seq. to crime tank, discretion of to determine municipality Section statute, as t o own located unsanitary not or within 22-26-1 does speaks only septic a tanks. regulatory Peak u r g e s t h i s Court to preempt the field intent In a d d i t i o n , § 22-26-4 does municipalities structures the Nothing nothing authority to within the located a l l , much l e s s 40 make s e p t i c tanks, but jurisdiction. at than structures construed, legislative of wastewater r e g u l a t i o n . t a n k s and 22-26-1 jurisdiction. operation is given i t a a crime a g a i n s t the r e g i s t r a t i o n of ownership § In unsanitary septic o r o p e r a t e an police septic more operate unsanitary plumbing within the 11-50-55. structures." municipalities w h e t h e r i t w o u l d be in § authority regulate municipalities "plumbing w i t h i n a g a i n s t the in i n § 11-50-55 t o given Section while therein, in indicates § an 22-26-4 intent CR-09-0805 on the p a r t of the municipalities l e g i s l a t u r e to usurp the to Likewise, regulate nothing in s e p t i c tanks under § the 420-3-1.104 indicates that those not areas regulated Peak a r g u e s . Rather, the of tank a septic constitute by language of i t is limited by the Ala. Admin. in scope Board State the State by Board of of of 11-50-55. Code solely to Health, as l a n g u a g e i s c l e a r t h a t mere approval or imply s t a t u t o r y power approval Health "does not a m u n i c i p a l i t y ... having ... may legal jurisdiction" and t h a t l o c a l county boards of h e a l t h regulate to another "according requirements" and dealing with coordinated this effort." ordinance no. reflects that proposed the septic provided has i.e., Tuscaloosa; The the i t has 6619, by i t was plan were a City with which 13-51 local the City the source county to of a of septic enacted health that pollution in Lake pollution; on in addition, indicating that such information In of to i n Part I originally board address report 41 was subject regulate jurisdiction. § stringent jurisdictions C i t y h e r e , as e x p l a i n e d legal the more r e g u l a t i o n t h a t are the to other statutory authority to that provided tanks the "cooperate with common a r e a s o f opinion, tanks, may jurisdiction's the leaking and that septic tanks in CR-09-0805 the drainage basin, that allowed property City owners s u b j e c t 13-51(3). This cooperating septic the b a s e d on tanks to the i n the State drainage regulation intended reviewing Code legislative Admin. We Code registration statutory regulate state r. seq., of septic § the 13-51(3) reasons of Ala. as we to find no those § was to regulate has provided After and clear Ala. much of municipality Rather than being § the we r e g i s t r a t i o n requirement 42 Ala. clear 11-50-55 i n conflict with i s a c t u a l l y complementary to above, or addresses usurps under find in § no of wastewater even less Admin. expression field that the thoroughly i n § 22-26-1 e t seq. tanks, above, establish that entire seq. stated to noted Code 1975. et a effort entire field. seq., 420-3-1 s e p t i c tanks. between the sufficient also f i n d nothing authority law, For et issued, department of h e a l t h tanks, i n t e n t to preempt the regulation. notices Board of H e a l t h septic i s not i t had basin. t o p r e e m p t an 420-3-1 local State of § 22-26-1 e t r. reminder City i n a coordinated regulation extensive that r e g i s t r a t i o n requirements i n the A l t h o u g h c e r t a i n l y the extensive permits send to the shows t h a t with the that to any law. inconsistency 13-51(3) and state CR-09-0805 law and no preemption wastewater regulation. relief on this by the State of Therefore, the Peak entire is field entitled of to no claim. III. Peak a l s o contends t h a t § 13-51(3) v i o l a t e s h i s r i g h t s due p r o c e s s and equal protection and Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s u n r e a s o n a b l e and state brief protecting that legitimate the water clearly supply However, lake, but City has not lake, § 13-51 lake. 6 and We are says, i s not Peak appears interests Peak of the to from we agree. both s e p t i c tanks are actually potential addressed other c a n n o t be threat, sources rationally of in and a his is a Protecting r e c r e a t i o n a l area government, is r e l a t e d to contaminants because a States provision concede that only asserts a United rationally i n t e r e s t , and protecting leaking he Lake Tuscaloosa governmental evidence that the interest. legitimate local. because, a r b i t r a r y and legitimate under both the to are both state there is and no contaminating because contamination the to the r e l a t e d to p r o t e c t i n g the disagree. P e a k a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e a r e l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e means f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r any s e p t i c t a n k s i n t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n are l e a k i n g o t h e r than r e q u i r i n g p r o p e r t y owners to have t h e i r 6 43 CR-09-0805 In Natural Northington v. Alabama Resources, 33 So. Supreme C o u r t 3d Department 560 (Ala. of Conservation 2009), the & Alabama explained: " I n M c I n n i s h v . R i l e y , 925 So. 2 d 2005), t h i s Court f u r t h e r s t a t e d : 174, 178 (Ala. "'[T]he standard of review of the trial court's judgment as to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of l e g i s l a t i o n i s w e l l established. T h i s C o u r t " ' s h o u l d be v e r y reluctant to hold any act u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . ' " E x p a r t e D.W., 835 So. 2 d 1 8 6 , 189 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B o y d , 796 So. 2 d 1 0 9 2 , 1094 (Ala. 2001)). " [ I ] n p a s s i n g upon the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a legislative a c t , the courts u n i f o r m l y approach the question with every p r e s u m p t i o n and i n t e n d m e n t i n f a v o r o f i t s v a l i d i t y , and seek t o s u s t a i n r a t h e r t h a n s t r i k e down t h e e n a c t m e n t o f a c o o r d i n a t e branch of the government." Alabama S t a t e F e d ' n o f L a b o r v . M c A d o r y , 246 A l a . 1, 9, 18 So. 2 d 8 1 0 , 815 (1944) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [in McInnish]). T h i s i s so, because " i t i s the recognized duty of the court to s u s t a i n the act unless i t is clear beyond reasonable doubt t h a t i t i s v i o l a t i v e of the fundamental law." 246 A l a . a t 9, 18 So. 2d at 815 (emphasis added [in McInnish]).' "Moreover, the r a t i o n a l - b a s i s t e s t i s the proper test to apply to either a substantive-due-process septic tanks s e r v i c e d every three years. However, as n o t e d a b o v e , b e c a u s e P e a k was n o t c h a r g e d w i t h n o t h a v i n g h i s s e p t i c tank s e r v i c e d , but simply w i t h not r e g i s t e r i n g h i s s e p t i c t a n k , we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t . 44 CR-09-0805 challenge o r an e q u a l - p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e when neither a suspect class nor a fundamental r i g h t i s involved. G i d e o n v . A l a b a m a S t a t e E t h i c s Comm'n, 3 7 9 S o . 2 d 570 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . 'Under t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s t e s t t h e C o u r t a s k s : (a) W h e t h e r t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n furthers a proper governmental purpose, a n d (b) whether the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o that purpose.' 379 So. 2 d a t 5 7 4 . " 33 So. 3d fundamental at 564. right Here, neither i s involved. a suspect class nor Therefore: "'The Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e i s s a t i s f i e d s o l o n g a s t h e law bears a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose and i s n e i t h e r a r b i t r a r y nor discriminatory. F o w l e r v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . ' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 3 0 9 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 710 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 0 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S . C t . 2 3 2 5 , 1 4 1 L . E d . 2 d 699 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . Furthermore, "'"'[t]he Equal Protection C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment goes no f u r t h e r t h a n t o p r o h i b i t invidious discrimination I f t h e r e i s some r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r the recognition of separate classes, and i f t h e disparate treatment o f t h e c l a s s e s has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by lawmakers, t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s n o t offended '"' " ' G o o d s o n v . S t a t e , 588 S o . 2 d 5 0 9 , 514 (Ala. C r . App. 1991) (quoting S t a t e v. Thompson, 133 N . J . S u p e r . 1 8 0 , 336 A . 2 d 1 1 , 14 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . ' "May v . S t a t e , 1997)." 710 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 2 , 1 3 6 5 45 ( A l a . C r . App. a CR-09-0805 City of M o n t g o m e r y v. Norman, 816 So. 2d 72, 79 (Ala. 1999). "The law i s clear that a party attacking the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e has the burden of n e g a t i n g every c o n c e i v a b l e or reasonable b a s i s that might support the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the statute. T h o r n v. Jefferson C o u n t y , 375 So. 2d 780 (Ala. 1 9 7 9 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t w i l l u p h o l d a s t a t u t e as l o n g as t h e s t a t u t e i m p l e m e n t s any r a t i o n a l p u r p o s e . S t a t e v . C o l o n i a l P i p e l i n e Co., 471 So. 2 d 408 (Ala. C i v . App. 1984). '[A] s t a t u t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e i f a n y s e t o f f a c t s r e a s o n a b l y may be c o n c e i v e d t o j u s t i f y i t . ' 471 So. 2d a t 412. ' U n l e s s c l e a r l y and p a t e n t l y arbitrary, oppressive a n d c a p r i c i o u s on i t s f a c e , s u c h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s not subject to j u d i c i a l review. Mere inequality under such classification is not sufficient to invalidate a statute.' S t a t e v . S p a n n , 270 A l a . 396, 400, 118 So. 2 d 7 4 0 , 743 (1959)." Northington, 33 inquiry rational-basis in a existence of basis actually was So. 3d at 922 (11th a So. 3d at conceivably 564. analysis rational considered 566 (quoting Cir. Thus, Haves by v. the City "[t]he fundamental ' i s concerned basis, not with whether l e g i s l a t i v e body.'" of Miami, 52 F.3d 1995)). "The validity of a police power regulation, therefore, p r i m a r i l y d e p e n d s on w h e t h e r , u n d e r a l l the existing circumstances, the regulation is r e a s o n a b l e , and whether i t i s r e a l l y designed to accomplish a purpose properly falling within the scope of the p o l i c e power. C r a b t r e e v. City of B i r m i n g h a m , 292 Ala. 684, 299 So. 2 d 282 (1974). C i t i e s may n o t , u n d e r t h e g u i s e o f t h e p o l i c e p o w e r , impose restrictions that are unnecessary and u n r e a s o n a b l e upon the use of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y or the 46 the that 33 918, CR-09-0805 p u r s u i t o f u s e f u l a c t i v i t i e s . L e a r y v. Adams, 226 A l a . 472, 147 So. 391 (1933). Otherwise expressed, t h e p o l i c e p o w e r may n o t be e m p l o y e d t o p r e v e n t e v i l s of a remote or h i g h l y p r o b l e m a t i c a l c h a r a c t e r . Nor may i t s e x e r c i s e be j u s t i f i e d when t h e r e s t r a i n t imposed upon the exercise of a p r i v a t e r i g h t i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e a m o u n t o f e v i l t h a t w i l l be corrected. B o l i n v . S t a t e , 266 A l a . 2 5 6 , 96 So. 2d 5 8 2 , c o n f o r m e d t o i n 39 A l a . A p p . 1 6 1 , 96 So. 2 d 592 (1957)." C i t y o f R u s s e l l v i l l e v. V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s , 527 (Ala. Co., 382 So. 2d 525, 1979). "'The c o n c e p t o f t h e p u b l i c w e l f a r e i s b r o a d and inclusive. The v a l u e s i t r e p r e s e n t s a r e s p i r i t u a l a s w e l l as p h y s i c a l , a e s t h e t i c as w e l l as m o n e t a r y . ' M e m b e r s o f C i t y C o u n c i l v . T a x p a y e r s f o r V i n c e n t , 4 66 U.S. 789, 8 0 5 , 104 S . C t . 2118, 2129, 80 L . E d . 2 d 772 (1984). While the r i g h t of the m u n i c i p a l i t y to enact l o c a l o r d i n a n c e s i s not u n l i m i t e d , the o r d i n a n c e must bear s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n to the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, and general convenience of i t s r e s i d e n t s . I f the ordinance i s debatable, this Court will not substitute its judgment f o r t h a t of the m u n i c i p a l government body acting in a legislative capacity. See City of R u s s e l l v i l l e v . V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s Co., 382 So. 2 d 525 (Ala. 1980)." W a l t e r v. App. C i t y of Gulf 2001), We a f f ' d , 829 reject Peak's Shores, So. 2d 829 So. 186 (Ala. argument 2d that 181, 186 (Ala. 2002). § 13-51(3) cannot r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to p r o t e c t i n g Lake Tuscaloosa because is no evidence contaminating the that lake, leaking but septic only 47 Crim. the tanks are possibility be there actually that a CR-09-0805 leaking Peak's s e p t i c tank assertion, could "a contaminate legislative court-room fact-finding speculation unsupported F.C.C. v. Beach and by Commc'ns, the lake. choice may I n c . , 508 to subject to i s not be evidence Contrary based or on rational empirical 307, U.S. data." (1993). 315 M o r e o v e r , as n o t e d above, o r d i n a n c e no. 6619, b y w h i c h § 13-51 was originally enacted, specifically h e a l t h department presented ongoing monitoring indicated higher specifically of the water than normal recognizing several sources reliance on a r e p o r t , an the of e x h i b i t , prepared request a report the by the county to the C i t y s t a t i n g that bacteria pollution. septic 7 In in Tuscaloosa the tanks lake as (after one addition, by Peak t o t h e t r i a l the Geological o f t h e C i t y i n 2004 that q u a l i t y of Lake leaking submitted states Survey and of Peak's court as of Alabama at the C i t y had already A l t h o u g h t h a t r e p o r t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d , we note that Peak d i d n o t c o n t e s t i n the t r i a l court the e x i s t e n c e o f t h a t r e p o r t , n o r d o e s he do s o on a p p e a l . In the trial court, Peak d i d appear to contest the scientific methodology used i n o b t a i n i n g the information contained i n the r e p o r t regarding b a c t e r i a l e v e l s i n the lake and the p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s o f t h a t b a c t e r i a , a n d he d i s p u t e d , as he does on appeal, whether s e p t i c tanks are a danger t o the l a k e . However, he d i d n o t c o n t e s t t h a t t h e r e p o r t d i d , i n f a c t , state that septic tanks are one of the sources of contamination. 7 48 CR-09-0805 enacted not, § 13-51(3)), i n fact, correctly shows a danger t o the l a k e , i s misplaced. argued, that f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that s e p t i c tanks are a thorough i t , like the department, indicates that of p o l l u t i o n to the lake. We pursue also reject reading report of this from As t h e C i t y report the l e a k i n g s e p t i c tanks actually county are a health source 8 Peak's argument t h a t t h e C i t y ' r e g u l a t i o n s o f any o t h e r sources failure to of contamination of The r e p o r t s t a t e s , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , t h a t " [ s ] t o r m water runoff i n urban areas can c o n t a i n e l e v a t e d sediment from c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , n u t r i e n t s from f e r t i l i z e d t u r f and lawns, t o x i c s from paved s u r f a c e s , and b a c t e r i a from p o o r l y functioning s e p t i c systems" (C. 2 1 2 ) ; t h a t w a t e r samples c o l l e c t e d during low-flow periods i n the h y d r o l o g i c a l cycle "represent source water o r i g i n a t i n g from s h a l l ground-water a q u i f e r s " and would d e t e c t i f " b a c t e r i a from p o o r l y m a i n t a i n e d s e p t i c t a n k s " was " i n c o n t a c t w i t h s h a l l o w g r o u n d w a t e r " w h i l e water samples collected during high-flow periods i n the hydrological cycle "represent source water from overland runoff" and would detect "[b]acterial contamination originating from l i v e s t o c k or p o u l t r y operations or from p o o r l y m a n a g e d t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s " (C. 2 1 4 ) ; t h a t " b a c t e r i a a s s o c i a t e d w i t h storm water r u n o f f during high stream flow periods i s l i n k e d t o high b a c t e r i a concentrations observed i n Lake Tuscaloosa" b u t t h a t " b a c t e r i a c o n t a m i n a t i o n a l s o occurs i n the watershed d u r i n g low flow p e r i o d s u n r e l a t e d t o storm water events" (C. 2 1 8 ) ; a n d t h a t " [ b ] a c t e r i a l e v e l s i n t h e w a t e r s h e d c a n e v e n t u a l l y be r e d u c e d b y a d o p t i n g a b a s i n - w i d e process and p l a n by which a g r i c u l t u r a l r u n o f f , animal-waste runoff, sediment runoff (both urban and a g r i c u l t u r a l ) and other w a s t e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t e s " and t h r e a t s are i d e n t i f i e d , monitored, a n d m a n a g e d ... " (C. 2 2 5 ; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 8 49 CR-09-0805 Lake Tuscaloosa indicates 51(3) was enacted that, therefore, protecting it to protect § 13-51(3) the lake. States (1938). the Legislature (1929). step Lake claim Tuscaloosa i s not Carolene "Legislatures ... a d o p t i n g to future U.S. 297, § 13- i s false rationally related Products, Co., 304 be held rigidly to implement regulations that and d e f e r r i n g U.S. regulations." City 303 As (1976). the 144, 151 i n Tyson v. J o h n s - M a n v i l l e 263 that 123 program step o f New Orleans v. Supreme Corp., of the Dukes, Court 1981) : (Ala. Sales, 399 So. 2d "The Supreme C o u r t h a s made i t c l e a r that the l e g i s l a t u r e n e e d n o t ' s t r i k e a t a l l e v i l s a t t h e same t i m e o r i n t h e same w a y , ' M i n n e s o t a v. C l o v e r L e a f C r e a m e r y C o . , [ 4 4 9 U.S. 4 5 6 , 4 6 6 , ] 1 0 1 S . C t . [ 7 1 5 , ] 725 [ ( 1 9 8 1 ) ] , c i t i n g Semler v. Oregon S t a t e B o a r d o f D e n t a l E x a m i n e r s , 294 U.S. 6 0 8 , 6 1 0 , 55 S . C t . 5 7 0 , 5 7 1 , 79 L . E d . 1 0 8 6 ( 1 9 3 5 ) . I t i s legitimate f o r the legislature to proceed 'one step at a time, a d d r e s s i n g i t s e l f t o t h e phase of t h e problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.' 50 by ameliorate elimination t h e Alabama explained ... of partially complete which choice their only to 280 U.S. 1 1 7 , S i l v e r v. S i l v e r , may and at another." i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t must evil that "A L e g i s l a t u r e may h i t a t a n a b u s e a l l o r none." perceived evil v. "[T]here regulating 427 the City's has found, even though i t has f a i l e d t o s t r i k e United a that CR-09-0805 W i l l i a m s o n v. Lee 4 6 1 , 99 L . E d . 563 399 So. 471, 2d 486-87 require aspect It at 272. of a a problem b a s e d on that leaking basin bacteria levels and/or basin of Lake in a sense d i c t a t e s t h a t tank within the tank would U.S. does not at every all. based rationally ... and of lake. are A Alabama legitimate was enacted department i n d i c a t i n g one lake source tanks within In that because toward 51 the high by that the leaking the drainage common maintained that septic part slopes the the the addition, and/or p o o r l y i.e, of report indicates contamination. travel a 13-51 subsequent also septic a leaking the § to maintained s e p t i c tanks w i t h i n shape contaminate 397 attacking related county health i n a bowl could be S.Ct. Clause problem above, Tuscaloosa the of noted basin, the the 75 Williams, between action drainage around septic lake choose attacking As maintained source v. Protection rationally from the Survey poorly are is and/or p o o r l y drainage 483, discrimination."). interest. a report Geological not U.S. Dandridge State's 13-51(3) governmental 348 Equal must or the from i n v i d i o u s Section also ("[T]he State i s enough t h a t free See (1970) that Optical, (1955)" of toward the the bacteria lake, while lake, from a land the leaking CR-09-0805 and/or basin poorly maintained where the pose a risk tank to would septic l a n d does not the not lake slope because travel toward tanks within the pollute within drainage the lake requirements in basin i t continues of aids the lake. the the the lake the Lake to lake so of protect as a due from the (1) the that the water is rationally contaminants may the or equal 52 the City, lake, in degree of then from p o l l u t i o n ; pursue and (2) p o l l u t i o n to the supply as well does protection. as Therefore, r e l a t e d to and other a i d the c a u s e and i t the located l o c a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l resource. process septic potentially the as b e s t requirement Tuscaloosa principles could of i t can, registration are enforcing lake City in limiting, the that drainage basin w i l l : not registration in a i d the protect the to monitor the b a c t e r i a l e v e l s i n the of order from City lake in lake would The that a d d i t i o n a l avenues to p r o t e c t the lake drainage C i t y t o keep t r a c k of g a i n i n g a d d i t i o n a l knowledge r e g a r d i n g contamination the Knowledge 13-51. s e p t i c tanks w i t h i n the as bacteria i t s police jurisdiction and § outside toward the the r e q u i r e m e n t i n § 13-51(3) a l l o w s septic tank to the protecting not violate CR-09-0805 We note granted an claims § 13-51(3) Tuscaloosa. allowed are also so t h a t 9 argues hearing the opportunity the City[.]" explained above, legislative governmental interest, constitutionally time required would at p. evidence rationally and a n o t have been to A l t h o u g h we r e c o g n i z e establish Jefferson the Lake have been and t h a t 62.) other ignored However, related to a legislative for a i s not a t t h e same Peak wanted t o to the determination claims as legitimate body a l l evils the evidence relevant regarding of § 13- t h a t t h e b u r d e n h e r e was o n P e a k invalidity County v. R i c h a r d s , and proving i s not required to address Thus, been evidence that s e p t i c tanks Peak's due-process and e q u a l - p r o t e c t i o n 51(3). evidence to the [l]ake[] are brief, o r i n t h e same w a y . present present of the [l]ake[], of pollution t o be have he a r g u e s t h a t he s h o u l d scientific choice should related to protecting "to present (Peak's he h i s equal-protection he c o u l d not a source of p o l l u t i o n sources that on i s not r a t i o n a l l y Specifically, significant by Peak evidentiary due-process that that of § 13-51(3), 805 So. 2 d 6 9 0 , 706 Peak does not argue that he was e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on h i s o t h e r c l a i m s . 9 53 see, e.g., ( A l a . 2001) entitled to an CR-09-0805 ("[T]he burden is on clearly show i t s the one challenging invalidity."), this n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t on e v i d e n t i a r y p r o o f . of Appeals recognized: "This evidentiary this proof; regarding unconstitutionality 60, 724 process the the N.W.2d and facial 13-51(3) legislature, legal 660 of § applied only 2010) ( e x p l a i n i n g the constitutional challenge is always facts). See, e.g., 270 (2010) Lynch, Ct. t o him. App. a S t a t e v. App. of challenge particular not See, 2010] to So. a case, and to a s t a t u t e , which a unconstitutional, regardless Therefore, no In re J e n k i n s , validity State evidentiary 50 54 51, due- "as to of § Adams, Crim. applied" i s based on the constitutional whether the statute of the particular hearing was necessary. C a l . 4 t h 1167, (no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g v. (Ala. "facial" i s b a s e d on Wis.2d challenges 3d s t a t u t e , which give Peak's d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n an to we to persuasive 297 the e.g., Court certainty the 2006). not refer that degree from 13-51(3), C R - 0 8 - 1 7 2 8 , N o v e m b e r 5, of our results (Wis. [Ms. facts i t means to does the Wisconsin e q u a l - p r o t e c t i o n arguments here are validity as and argument." 656, burden As context, to of ordinance 'heavy b u r d e n ' does not deference force the in the 1181, 240 i s r e q u i r e d on P.3d 260, due-process CR-09-0805 challenge to statute "[w]hether general a a rule, factual under statute or rational-basis regulation a l e g a l question question requiring People v. Johnson, (1978) (no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g challenge to statute particular applied 195 C o l o . i s rational f o r the court an i s , as a not hearing"); and 3 5 0 , 3 5 2 , 578 P . 2 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 - 2 8 i s required "motion on equal-protection d i d not assert the statute to the appellant" and "only to the t r i a l because to resolve, evidentiary rendered presented facts where analysis that any unconstitutional questions of as l a w were court"). IV. Finally, Amendment says, privilege i trequires drainage basin jurisdiction property, to for Peak contends t h a t prove against that of s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n because, he a d m i t Lake two o f t h e t h r e e i f , a t some p o i n t This that h e owns p r o p e r t y Tuscaloosa of t h e C i t y and that f a i l i n g to maintain 13-51(6). § 13-51(3) v i o l a t e s h i s F i f t h within the i n the police he h a s a s e p t i c t a n k on h i s e l e m e n t s t h e C i t y w o u l d be i n the future, h i s septic tank required i t prosecuted him i n accordance with argument i s c l e a r l y m e r i t l e s s . 55 he § CR-09-0805 As Byers, the the t r i a l 402 U.S. court 424 noted (1971), i n i t sorder, California i s i n s t r u c t i v e here. v. In Byers, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i n g C a l i f o r n i a ' s " h i t a n d run" statute, involved which required i n an a c c i d e n t o r h e r name a n d a d d r e s s . defendant's challenge self-incrimination, Court the driver t o stop o f a motor a t t h e scene vehicle and provide h i s In upholding the statute against the that i tv i o l a t e d h i s p r i v i l e g e a plurality of the United States against Supreme explained: "Whenever the Court i s confronted with the question of a compelled disclosure that h a s an incriminating potential, the j u d i c i a l scrutiny i s i n v a r i a b l y a c l o s e one. Tension between t h e S t a t e ' s demand f o r d i s c l o s u r e s a n d t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e right against s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o give rise to serious questions. I n e v i t a b l y t h e s e must be r e s o l v e d i n t e r m s o f b a l a n c i n g t h e p u b l i c n e e d on t h e one h a n d , a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s on t h e o t h e r ; n e i t h e r i n t e r e s t c a n be treated lightly. "An organized s o c i e t y i m p o s e s many b u r d e n s o n its constituents. I t commands t h e f i l i n g o f t a x returns f o r income; i t requires producers and d i s t r i b u t o r s o f consumer goods t o f i l e i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e p o r t s on t h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s a n d t h e c o n t e n t of products, on t h e wages, hours, and working c o n d i t i o n s o f employees. T h o s e who b o r r o w m o n e y o n the p u b l i c market o r i s s u e s e c u r i t i e s f o rs a l e t o t h e public must file various information reports; i n d u s t r i e s must r e p o r t p e r i o d i c a l l y t h e volume and content of p o l l u t a n t s discharged i n t o our waters and atmosphere. Comparable examples a r e l e g i o n . 56 CR-09-0805 "In each of these s i t u a t i o n s there i s some p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r o s e c u t i o n -- o f t e n a v e r y r e a l one -- f o r c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s d i s c l o s e d b y o r d e r i v i n g from the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the law compels a p e r s o n t o supply. I n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d by t h e s e r e p o r t s c o u l d w e l l b e 'a l i n k i n t h e c h a i n ' o f e v i d e n c e l e a d i n g t o p r o s e c u t i o n and c o n v i c t i o n . But under our h o l d i n g s t h e mere p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n c r i m i n a t i o n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to defeat the strong policies in favor of a disclosure called f o r by statutes like the one challenged here. " U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S u l l i v a n , 274 U.S. 259 (1927), s h o w s t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i v i l e g e t o t h e California statute i s not warranted. There a bootlegger was prosecuted for f a i l u r e to f i l e an income t a x r e t u r n . He c l a i m e d t h a t t h e privilege a g a i n s t c o m p u l s o r y s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n a f f o r d e d him a complete d e f e n s e because f i l i n g a r e t u r n would have t e n d e d t o i n c r i m i n a t e him by r e v e a l i n g t h e u n l a w f u l source of h i s income. Speaking f o r the Court, Mr. J u s t i c e H o l m e s r e j e c t e d t h i s c l a i m on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t a m o u n t e d t o 'an e x t r e m e i f n o t a n extravagant a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e F i f t h Amendment.' I d . , a t 263-264 S u l l i v a n ' s tax r e t u r n , of course, i n c r e a s e d h i s r i s k o f p r o s e c u t i o n and c o n v i c t i o n f o r v i o l a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l P r o h i b i t i o n Act. But the C o u r t had no d i f f i c u l t y i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t an e x t e n s i o n o f the p r i v i l e g e to cover t h a t k i n d of mandatory report would have been u n j u s t i f i e d . In order to invoke the p r i v i l e g e i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o show t h a t t h e c o m p e l l e d disclosures will themselves confront the claimant w i t h ' s u b s t a n t i a l hazards of s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . ' "The components of this a r t i c u l a t e d i n A l b e r t s o n v . SACB, and l a t e r i n M a r c h e t t i v. U n i t e d (1968), G r o s s o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , a n d H a y n e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390 1 0 All of these cases are relied 57 requirement were 382 U.S. 70 (1965), S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 39 390 U.S. 62 (1968), U.S. 85 (1968).[ ] on 1 0 by Peak i n h i s brief. CR-09-0805 I n A l b e r t s o n t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n b y i n d i v i d u a l members o f a C o m m u n i s t organization v i o l a t e d the p r i v i l e g e . There S u l l i v a n was d i s t i n g u i s h e d : "'In S u l l i v a n the questions i n the i n c o m e t a x r e t u r n were n e u t r a l on their face and d i r e c t e d a t t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e , but here they are d i r e c t e d at a h i g h l y selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities. P e t i t i o n e r s ' claims are not asserted in an essentially n o n c r i m i n a l and r e g u l a t o r y area of i n q u i r y , b u t a g a i n s t an i n q u i r y i n an a r e a p e r m e a t e d w i t h c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s , where r e s p o n s e t o a n y o f t h e ... q u e s t i o n s i n context might involve the p e t i t i o n e r s i n the admission of a c r u c i a l element of a crime.' 382 U.S., a t 79 " A l b e r t s o n was f o l l o w e d b y M a r c h e t t i a n d G r o s s o w h e r e the Court h e l d t h a t the p r i v i l e g e a f f o r d e d a complete defense to prosecutions f o r noncompliance with f e d e r a l gambling t a x and r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s . I t was a l s o f o l l o w e d i n H a y n e s w h e r e p e t i t i o n e r h a d been p r o s e c u t e d f o r f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r a f i r e a r m as r e q u i r e d by f e d e r a l s t a t u t e . In each of these cases the Court found t h a t compliance w i t h the s t a t u t o r y d i s c l o s u r e requirements would confront the p e t i t i o n e r with 'substantial hazards of s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . ' E . g . , M a r c h e t t i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390 U.S., a t 6 1 . " I n a l l o f t h e s e c a s e s t h e d i s c l o s u r e s condemned were o n l y t h o s e e x t r a c t e d from a ' h i g h l y s e l e c t i v e group i n h e r e n t l y s u s p e c t of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s ' and t h e p r i v i l e g e was a p p l i e d o n l y i n 'an a r e a p e r m e a t e d w i t h c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s ' -- n o t i n 'an e s s e n t i a l l y n o n c r i m i n a l and r e g u l a t o r y area of i n q u i r y . ' E.g., Albertson v . SACB, 382 U.S., a t 79; M a r c h e t t i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390 U.S., a t 4 7 . 58 CR-09-0805 " A l t h o u g h t h e C a l i f o r n i a V e h i c l e Code d e f i n e s some c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s , t h e s t a t u t e i s e s s e n t i a l l y r e g u l a t o r y , not c r i m i n a l . The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme C o u r t n o t e d t h a t § 2 0 0 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) was n o t i n t e n d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s but to promote the satisfaction of civil liabilities arising from automobile accidents. In M a r c h e t t i the Court r e s t e d on t h e r e a l i t y t h a t a l m o s t e v e r y t h i n g c o n n e c t e d w i t h gambling i s i l l e g a l under 'comprehensive' s t a t e and f e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y schemes. The C o u r t n o t e d t h a t i n almost every conceivable s i t u a t i o n compliance with the s t a t u t o r y gambling r e q u i r e m e n t s would have been incriminating. L a r g e l y because of these p e r v a s i v e c r i m i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n s , gamblers were c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o u r t t o b e 'a h i g h l y s e l e c t i v e g r o u p i n h e r e n t l y suspect of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s . ' "In c o n t r a s t , § 2 0 0 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , l i k e income t a x l a w s , i s d i r e c t e d a t a l l p e r s o n s -- h e r e a l l p e r s o n s who drive automobiles i n C a l i f o r n i a . This group, n u m b e r i n g as i t does i n t h e m i l l i o n s , i s so l a r g e as to render § 20002(a)(1) a s t a t u t e ' d i r e c t e d at the public at large.' A l b e r t s o n v . SACB, 382 U.S., at 7 9 , c o n s t r u i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S u l l i v a n , 274 U.S. 259 ( 1 9 2 7 ) . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c o n s i d e r t h i s group as e i t h e r ' h i g h l y s e l e c t i v e ' o r ' i n h e r e n t l y s u s p e c t of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s . ' D r i v i n g an automobile, u n l i k e gambling, i s a l a w f u l a c t i v i t y . Moreover, i t i s n o t a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w t o be a d r i v e r ' i n v o l v e d i n a n a c c i d e n t . ' A n a c c i d e n t may b e t h e f a u l t o f o t h e r s ; i t may occur without any d r i v e r h a v i n g been at f a u l t . No e m p i r i c a l d a t a a r e suggested i n support of the c o n c l u s i o n that there i s a r e l e v a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between b e i n g a d r i v e r and c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n of d r i v e r s . So f a r a s any a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i n s t r u c t s us, most a c c i d e n t s o c c u r w i t h o u t c r e a t i n g c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y e v e n i f one o r b o t h o f t h e d r i v e r s a r e g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e as a m a t t e r of t o r t law. is "The d i s c l o s u r e inherently risky. of i n h e r e n t l y i l l e g a l activity Our d e c i s i o n s i n A l b e r t s o n a n d 59 CR-09-0805 the cases f o l l o w i n g i l l u s t r a t e that truism. But disclosures with respect to automobile accidents s i m p l y do n o t e n t a i l t h e k i n d o f s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n M a r c h e t t i , Grosso, and Haynes. Furthermore, the s t a t u t o r y purpose i s n o n c r i m i n a l and s e l f - r e p o r t i n g i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o its 402 fulfillment." U.S. a t 427-31 Similarly, criminal. septic here, but regulatory area. for of § is pursuing exact of to above, regarding We are n o t an area i s primarily regulatory, c r i m i n a l aspects area is "permeated w i t h essentially r e j e c t Peak's a that criminal s e r v i c i n g requirements 13-51, criminal the sole prosecutions in § the aids requirements the the p o l l u t i o n ways City in § 13-51(6), i n gaining 13-51(6). i n the of p r o t e c t i n g the lake lake so by that although owning p r o p e r t y § 13A-51(3) i n the drainage 60 is i t can basin of Lake at as knowledge continue g i v i n g the C i t y directed who i t also, additional l o c a t i o n of each s e p t i c tank i n the drainage addition, § noncriminal, contention i s to f a c i l i t a t e the to not § 13-51(3) c e r t a i n l y a i d s t h e C i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g subject noted the 13-51(3) violations Although there are simply statutes," omitted). § 13-51(3) Although tanks purpose (footnotes basin. only Tuscaloosa the In those who CR-09-0805 have septic group tanks "inherently Most of by City, property, suspect of § Peak 13-51(3) number, s i t e address, and identify the type the system the crime The date person of statutes form pose a the that the "substantial registration also trial form court used as an system on or business who number of to the p r o p e r t y ; where of the drainage b a s i n of Lake t o have a septic tank property incrimination violative system; system; information Tuscaloosa, to nor own is i t located within the Tuscaloosa. t h e c a s e s r e l i e d on b y P e a k i n h i s b r i e f as the I t i s not a crime i n the on of the installed None the p r o p e r t y owners asks incriminatory. drainage b a s i n of Lake All not to installation. requested i s , i t s e l f , a do here i s l o c a t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y ; t h e s i z e name o f property is and t e l e p h o n e numbers, and of wastewater the clear parcel-identification own. and this asks p r o p e r t y owners i n the d r a i n a g e b a s i n t o p r o v i d e the p r o p e r t y they the say activities." The provided t h e i r names, m a i l i n g a d d r e s s e s , lot cannot i t is self-incrimination." which we criminal however, r e q u i r e d by hazards exhibit, the importantly, disclosures the on of the involved statutes 61 privilege that striking against down self- required admissions of CR-09-0805 inherently States, those States, criminal 390 U.S. complying Albertson (1968) in U.S. o f handgun by (1965) 39 engaged 390 85, People 765 96 v. the violate aff'd sub 169 nom., 704 N . Y . S . 2 d 497 (2000), 726 N . Y . S . 2 d 343 (N.Y. privilege's c o n f r o n t e d by substantial or imaginary, hazards of at 53. Circuit As the aptly United aff'd, has and the 646 Smart, 269 central whether 'real,' of U.S. 70 of the duties to and not 750 45, for the claimant is merely Marchetti, Appeals 549, N.E.2d standard the 762, A.D.2d for trifling 390 the explained: "In our complex s o c i e t y , i n d i v i d u a l s are c a l l e d upon t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n to the government on c o u n t l e s s o c c a s i o n s and under a great v a r i e t y of circumstances. Where Congress has framed a 62 and N.Y.S.2d N.Y.2d 793, Court 382 members 96 been without self-incrimination." 792, v. United gun a l l affirmative incrimination." States by by registration Bd., "The 2001). application Control 787, People v. requirements); against Misc.2d United registration requiring registration "[n]ot v. Haynes other privilege Patterson, (1996), (statute Activities However, v. requiring activities); statute's requiring the Marchetti o b t a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n of Subversive (statute e.g., (statute (1968) t h o s e who with See, gambling Communist p a r t y ) . report activity. U.S. First CR-09-0805 d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t n a r r o w l y f o c u s e d upon c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t , t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s on o c c a s i o n struck down s u c h s t a t u t e s . H a y n e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 8 5 , 88 S . C t . 7 2 2 , 19 L . E d . 2 d 923 (1968); M a r c h e t t i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390 U.S. 3 9 , 88 S . C t . 6 9 7 , 19 L . E d . 2 d 8 8 9 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; A l b e r t s o n v . Subversive A c t i v i t i e s C o n t r o l B d . , 382 U.S. 7 0 , 86 S . C t . 1 9 4 , 15 L . E d . 2 d 165 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . B u t where t h e c o n d u c t i s n o t inherently criminal, the Court has upheld the s t a t u t e s e v e n where t h e r e p o r t i n g c o u l d i n due c o u r s e l e a d t h e government t o uncover c r i m i n a l conduct. C a l i f o r n i a v . B y e r s , 402 U.S. 4 2 4 , 91 S . C t . 1 5 3 5 , 29 L . E d . 2 d 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S u l l i v a n , 274 U.S. 2 5 9 , 47 S . C t . 6 0 7 , 71 L . E d . 1 0 3 7 (1927)." United States v. (emphasis added). point Hurley, criminal form conduct F.3d Here, although i n the future, registration 63 that could on requirement i t s e l f 1, there 13 may b e a r i s k , the information lead the to part the of does n o t r e q u i r e ( 1 s t C i r . 1995) required discovery Peak, a t some the by t h e of future registration Peak t o admit t o anything inherently criminal. Therefore, Amendment entitled 13-51(3) privilege t o no r e l i e f Based is § does against violate Peak's claim. t h e judgment of the t r i a l affirmed. AFFIRMED. Windom, K e l l u m , Burke, Fifth s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , and Peak i s on t h i s on t h e f o r e g o i n g , not and J o i n e r , 63 J J . , concur. court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.