In Mississippi, Debate Over Water Waivers For Domestic Violence Victims

The Mississippi Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the opinion that state regulators cannot force hundreds of rural water utilities to give domestic violence survivors extra time to pay their deposits when hooking up new water accounts.

“The court ruled 5-3 that such deposits are part of rates and the Public Service Commission (PSC), under state law, can't regulate the rates of most nonprofit water providers,” the Associated Press reported. “The rule requires utilities to delay collecting deposits from domestic violence victims for 60 days.”

Chief Justice William Waller Jr. wrote for the majority: "We find that the (commission) lacks statutory authority to adopt any rule regulating the rates of nonprofit water utility associations and corporations."

Nevertheless, PSC Chairman Brandon Presley, who first introduced the rule, was positive about the outcome. He said the decision will not prevent regulators from compelling investor-owned utilities from postponing deposits, according to the Daily Journal.

“Today’s ruling is a win for victims of domestic violence who are trying to escape dangerous situations,” Presley said, per the report. “Evidence shows that financial burdens such as utility deposits prevent many from leaving domestic violence situations.”

The Supreme Court decision effectively reinstates parts of the Mississippi rule. The court previously shot down the rule in February, the Associated Press previously reported.

“But the Public Service Commission asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its February decision. The PSC argued that it does have the authority to enforce the ordinance for public utilities other than the about 950 rural water associations,” the Daily Journal reported.

The Mississippi rule “was modeled after similar measures in Louisiana and Texas. The Mississippi [PSC] has said the rule won't be a burden [in the state] because few people use it in those states,” The Clarion-Ledger reported.

In February, Justice Leslie King wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing, among other things, that “a deposit, based on its plain language definition, is not a rate for the sale of water.”

To read more about how water utilities serve ratepayers visit Water Online’s Consumer Outreach Solutions Center.