Mountain Pure, LLC v. Little Rock Wastewater Utility, 383 S.W.3d 347

Mountain Pure appealed LRW's administrative decision finding violations of its compliance order, discharge permit, and sewer ordinance; LRW required separation of outfalls and installed a representative sampling/flow-measurement system to bill sewer fees accurately.
LRW's 2001 compliance order required Mountain Pure to install a properly calibrated sewer meter; LRW warned it would use city meters until fixed.
LRW permitted only two flow-measurement methods: a LRW-approved sewer meter or facility-based diversion meters.
MWP pursued alternatives for estimating wastewater flow; LRW clarified the ordinance in 2007–2009, referencing Little Rock Ordinance No. 19,647 §1(d) and §1(f)(6).
In 2009 the LRW Sanitary Sewer Committee authorized a show-cause order; the July 2009 hearing officer found MWP violated the compliance order, the discharge permit, and the ordinance; August 2009 compliance deadline was set.
The circuit court affirmed in 2010; MWP appealing; LRW argued Rule 9 governs the appeal since LRW is a municipal body rather than a state agency; this Court held Rule 9 governs and retained administrative-review standard of review; the appeal was then affirmed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was properly perfected under Rule 9.	Mountain Pure argues APA/§§ 25-15-212, 35-303(C) apply.	LRW argues Rule 9 governs appeals from municipal agencies.	Yes; Rule 9 governs and provides jurisdiction.
Whether §1(d) vs §1(f)(6) of Ordinance 19,647 was correctly applied.	§1(f)(6) allows credits for unjust charges; no meter installation required.	§1(d) controls for customers with non-sewer-dispatched water; specific statute governs over general.	LRW correctly applied §1(d); §1(f)(6) not controlling for past charges here.
Whether the administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence.	MWP presented overcharge evidence; LRW failed to show non-overcharge.	LRW found no competent support from Watkins; §1(d) compliance and meter requirement justified the credit.	Yes; decision supported by substantial evidence and independent bases. (Circuit affirmed)
Whether the circuit court erred in excluding/admitting a post-order chart under evidentiary rules.	Chart confirms overcharges; not offered to prove liability, but damages.	Chart was for settlement and not part of agency record; Rule 408 applies; moot issue, no reversal.	Moot; no reversal on evidentiary issue.

Nash v. Ark. Elevator Safety Bd., 370 Ark. 345 (2007) (scope of review limited to the agency record; substantial evidence standard)
Wright v. City of Little Rock, 366 Ark. 96 (2006) (pleadings liberally construed to give substance over form in administrative appeals)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 374 Ark. 489 (2008) (general statute yields to specific statute; statutory interpretation given deference to agency)
Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 342 Ark. 591 (2000) (specificity governs over general regulation in regulatory matters)
Stricklin v. Hays, 332 Ark. 270 (1998) (interpretation of ordinances; apply same rules as statutes)
Cave City Nursing Home, Inc. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 351 Ark. 13 (2002) (statutory-construction rules apply to ordinances; deference to agency interpretation)
Johnson v. Dawson, 2010 Ark. 308 (2010) (strict compliance with Rule 9; pleadings viewed for substantial justice)
City of Ft. Smith v. Carter, 372 Ark. 93 (2008) (appellate deference to agency rulings and statutory construction)
Chelsea Piers Management, Inc. v. Chapin, 7 A.D.3d 389 (2004) (illustrative of credit/adjustment arguments in sewer charges)