One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted an amicus brief, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. United States. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority $633,150.90 for unpaid sewer charges. In the appeal, the United States presents questions related to statutory interpretation and contractual equitable defenses. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, the United States contends the Court of Federal Claims erred “when it ignored language” in the D.C. Public Works Act of 1954 “that directly exempts” the Armed Forces Retirement Home “from having to pay any for water or sewer services.” Alternatively, the United States continues, “even if the 1954 Act did apply to the Home,” the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority “waived any rights under it.” The United States points to a 1938 agreement between the Home and the District of Columbia “in which the Home gave the District permission to install [a water reservoir on the Home’s property] in exchange for the ‘perpetual right to the use of water from the water supply system.’” The United States argues “the trial court largely ignored the plain meaning of ‘extension’” in the 1954 Act’s exception.” According to the United States, “the free water services promised in the 1938 Agreement were . . . furnished for the extension of the water system.” Additionally, the United States maintains, the District “clearly, and for decades,” “waived any rights under the 1954 Act” by, “for 50 years after the 1954 Act, never charg[ing] the Home for any water or sewer services.”
In its response brief, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority argues the 1954 Act’s “exception clause has not been triggered because it only applies to the water provided to [the Home] that is used for their maintenance, operation, or extension of the water system within their facility or is used by D.C. Water for the maintenance, operation, or extension of the District water supply system.” The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority also maintains “the U.S. has failed to establish the necessary elements required for any of the equitable defenses that it . . . asserts.” The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority contends “equitable defenses may not be superimposed for the purpose of displacing” the federal statute. It also argues that finding the statute “unenforceable based on DC Water’s prior lack of billing . . . would amount to a statutory repeal by the executive branch in direct violation of the separation of powers doctrine.”
In its reply brief, the United States maintains the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority “ignores the plain meaning” of “extension” in the 1954 Act “in favor or a specialized utility meaning.” According to the United States, moreover, “the cases DC Water cites do not establish this alleged specialized meaning.” The United States also argues that “applying waiver and estoppel” in this case “would not be encroaching on any legislative prerogative of Congress,” but instead would be “furthering the Act’s purported purpose.” In particular, it would “ensur[e] that DC Water does not incur undue costs to maintain he easement it received in the 1938 Agreement.”
This case attracted an amicus brief filed by the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment in support of affirmance. DOEE contends “the 1954 Act’s plain text, history, and purpose confirm [the] conclusion” that the Home “should be required to pay its fair share.” DOEE also maintains “the District cannot be precluded form enforcing [the 1954 Act’s] statutory mandate . . . simply because the District did not enforce it in prior years.”
Oral argument in this case is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, October 8, at 10:00 a.m. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit James B. Parsons Ceremonial Courtroom.