8. Sewer Service

Section 230.6 defines "sewer system corporation" to mean "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any sewer system for compensation" within California. However, the definition of "sewer system" in § 230.5 specifically excludes CPUC-regulation of sewer facilities on the property of a single owner. That statute provides:

Sewer system" includes all real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned, controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate sewage collection, treatment, or disposition for sanitary or drainage purposes, including any and all lateral and connecting sewers, interceptors, trunk and outfall lines and sanitary sewage treatment or disposal plants or works, and any and all drains, conduits, and outlets for surface or storm waters, and any and all other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for the collection or disposal of sewage, industrial waste, or surface or storm waters. "Sewer system" shall not include a sewer system which merely collects sewage on the property of a single owner. (§ 230.5, emphasis added.)

Therefore, we agree with GSMOL that the jurisdictional conclusion we must draw is that where a MHP is owned by a single owner, in-park sewer facilities are not subject to regulation by the CPUC. The same conclusion would apply to multi-unit apartment sewer systems, where a single individual or entity owns the apartments. That is the clear impact of existing law, enacted in 1970, whether or not the policy criterion remain sound today.

In all other situations -- where the MHP or multi-unit apartment legally is owned by more than one person or entity -- the dedication doctrine must influence our interpretation of § 230.5. Dedication remains a factual question. Accordingly, consistent with our discussion in section 7, above, two results are possible.

One, following a case-by-case examination of the facts of individual complaints filed in future, the Commission could conclude that given MHPs or multi-unit apartments are acting as defacto public utilities, and must obtain CPCNs or cease and desist. In the alternative, again following a case-by-case examination of the facts, the Commission could conclude that no dedication had occurred. Absent dedication, sewer charge disputes are landlord/tenant matters, subject to the jurisdiction of local rent control boards, in some cases, or the civil courts.

Because MHPs are subject to the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Legislature may wish to address the subject of sewer charges at MHPs with greater particularity than it has to date. The record developed in our proceeding suggests that amendment of Civ. Code § 798.41 of the Mobilehome Residency Law may be helpful to resolve the dispute over what sewer charges can lawfully be billed under the terms of that statute. As with water charges, the dispute over sewer charges arises once they are removed from rent in accordance with the formula in Civ. Code § 798.41(a). (See footnote 4, above, which quotes Civ. Code § 798.41, in relevant part.) As with water, the question is whether the landlord may charge the prevailing rate or only a pro rata allocation of the charges the MHP actually pays.