(a) No person shall operate or maintain a public water supply system unless the system
is approved by the director of health. Applications for approval shall be made to
the director on forms provided for this purpose.
(b) Upon receipt of an application, the director shall review the application, supporting
documents, and conduct an inspection of the public water supply system to determine
if it meets the requirements for approval set forth in this chapter and the regulations
adopted hereunder. If, after review, the director determines that the public water
supply system complies with the requirements of this chapter and the regulations adopted
hereunder, approval of the application to operate or maintain a public water supply
system shall be granted.
(c) An approval, unless sooner suspended or revoked, shall expire on the 30th day of June
following its issuance and may be reviewed from year to year. Each approval shall
be issued only for the public water supply system and persons named on the application,
and shall not be transferable or assignable.
(d) The initial fee for any approval and the approval renewal fee shall be established
by the director by regulation. The fees, as established by the director, shall be
related to the costs incurred in operating the program and may include administrative,
personnel, equipment, laboratory services and such other related costs necessary to
carry out the provisions of this section of the law. All fees collected under this
section shall be deposited as general revenues.
Notes of Decisions
Kent Cnty. Water Auth. v. State (Dep't of Health), 723 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 10× “In sum, we conclude that legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the Superior Court’s conclusion that the imposition of DOH’s § 46-13-2.1 annual approval fees upon petitioner constituted a lawful licensing measure, and that petitioner may not *1137 rely upon…”
Legend's Creek LLC v. State of Rhode Island (D.R.I. 2023).
· cites it 2× “G.L. §§ 46-13-2.1 and 46-13-2.2. When that discretion is not only based on the statutory language but also the public health and safety purpose of the law, Plaintiffs did not have legitimate claim of entitlement to the public water supply permit.”
Legend's Creek LLC v. State of Rhode Island (D.R.I. 2023).
· cites it 2× “G.L. §§ 46-13-2.1 and 46-13-2.2. When that discretion is not only based on the statutory language but also the public health and safety purpose of the law, Plaintiffs did not have legitimate claim of entitlement to the public water supply permit.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 46-13-2.1(a): 1 case
Kent Cnty. Water Auth. v. State (Dep't of Health), 723 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1999).
“In sum, we conclude that legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the Superior Court’s conclusion that the imposition of DOH’s § 46-13-2.1 annual approval fees upon petitioner constituted a lawful licensing measure, and that petitioner may not *1137 rely upon…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 46-13-2.1(b): 1 case
Kent Cnty. Water Auth. v. State (Dep't of Health), 723 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1999).
“In sum, we conclude that legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the Superior Court’s conclusion that the imposition of DOH’s § 46-13-2.1 annual approval fees upon petitioner constituted a lawful licensing measure, and that petitioner may not *1137 rely upon…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 46-13-2.1(c): 1 case
Kent Cnty. Water Auth. v. State (Dep't of Health), 723 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1999).
“In sum, we conclude that legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the Superior Court’s conclusion that the imposition of DOH’s § 46-13-2.1 annual approval fees upon petitioner constituted a lawful licensing measure, and that petitioner may not *1137 rely upon…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.