Alabama Department of Enviromental Management and Alabama Environmental Management Commission v. Friends of Hurricane Creek and John Wathen (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-09-1320)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/14/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110410 Alabama Department o f Environmental Management and Alabama Environmental Management Commission v. F r i e n d s o f Hurricane Creek and John Wathen 2110411 SDW, Inc. v. F r i e n d s o f Hurricane Creek and John Wathen Appeals from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-1320) PITTMAN, Judge. 1 Court 2110410 a n d 2110411 These two c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l s o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t of H u r r i c a n e determining Department developer"), discharged of ("the by the ("the a g a i n s t SDW, I n c . that purportedly c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l s i n t o an unnamed t r i b u t a r y ( " t h e Hurricane entered developer entered Management Environmental a residential t r i b u t a r y " ) of Cottondale into that the Friends o f an o r d e r Department") a s s e s s i n g monetary s a n c t i o n s ("the from a judgment C r e e k ("FOHC") a n d J o h n Wathen have s t a n d i n g t o seek ( a ) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w Alabama are taken Creek, a body o f w a t e r t h a t C r e e k ; and ( b ) j u d i c i a l by t h e Alabama E n v i r o n m e n t a l Commission") d e c l i n i n g administrative-review circuit court's court's decision request judgment review o f an Management t o address flows Commission the merits of the made b y FOHC a n d Wathen. was e n t e r e d i n Alabama on remand Department Management v. F r i e n d s o f H u r r i c a n e of order from The this Environmental C r e e k , 71 So. 3d 673 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; t h a t o p i n i o n s u m m a r i z e s much o f t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t u a l and l e g a l background: "Under Alabama law, t h e Department i s t h e s t a t e agency primarily responsible f o r administering environmental legislation, i n c l u d i n g t h e Alabama W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § 22¬ 22-1 e t s e q . See A l a . Code 1975, § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 2 ( 1 ) . The Department i s v e s t e d w i t h t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o 'assess[] a c i v i l penalty t o any p e r s o n who v i o l a t e s ' various environmental s t a t u t e s , i n c l u d i n g 2 2110410 a n d 2110411 those p e r t a i n i n g t o water p o l l u t i o n . A l a . Code 1975, § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 5 ( 1 8 ) a . Such a p e n a l t y , i f i m p o s e d , ' s h a l l n o t be l e s s t h a n $100.00 o r e x c e e d $25,000.00 f o r e a c h v i o l a t i o n , ' [ ] s u b j e c t t o a $250,000 t o t a l , and e a c h d a y t h a t a v i o l a t i o n c o n t i n u e s i s deemed, u n d e r A l a b a m a law, t o be a s e p a r a t e v i o l a t i o n . A l a . Code 1975, § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 5 ( 1 8 ) c . 1 "Pursuant t o notices of v i o l a t i o n sent t o the d e v e l o p e r i n J u l y 2006 a n d J a n u a r y 2008 a s t o various claimed violations of best management p r a c t i c e s as t o i t s W i l l i a m s b u r g development i n T u s c a l o o s a County, t h e Department, i n September 2008, i s s u e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e d e v e l o p e r s h o u l d pay t h e Department a c i v i l penalty o f $20,000 a n d t o t a k e v a r i o u s measures d e s i g n e d t o c o r r e c t t h e c o n d i t i o n s , s u c h as t h e discharge of sediments from the Williamsburg development, t h a t h a d been o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t h e Department's i n s p e c t i o n s . The D e p a r t m e n t a n d t h e developer were the sole parties to that administrative proceeding. "Under Alabama l a w , t h e Commission i s t h e tribunal with statutory authority to 'develop e n v i r o n m e n t a l p o l i c y f o r t h e s t a t e ' a n d t o 'hear a n d determine a p p e a l s ' brought by persons ' a g g r i e v e d by ... a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n [ s ] o f t h e [ D ] e p a r t m e n t . ' A l a . Code 1975, §§ 2 2 - 2 2 A - 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) a n d (4) a n d 2222A-7(c). The C o m m i s s i o n , i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - a p p e a l proceedings, has t h e a u t h o r i t y to 'modify[], approv[e] or disapprov[e] the [D]epartment's administrative action.' A l a . Code 1975, § 22-22A7(c)(3). " I n O c t o b e r 2008, FOHC a n d Wathen f i l e d an administrative appeal with the Commission c h a l l e n g i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e Department's order p e n a l i z i n g t h e d e v e l o p e r ; FOHC a n d Wathen c o n t e n d e d T h a t p o r t i o n o f § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 5 ( 1 8 ) c . p r o v i d i n g f o r a $100 minimum p e n a l t y h a s b e e n r e p e a l e d . See A c t No. 2011-612, A l a . A c t s 2011. We e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h a t r e p e a l upon t h i s c a s e . 1 3 2110410 a n d 2110411 t h a t t h e Department's order a r b i t r a r i l y f a i l e d t o make c e r t a i n a d v e r s e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e d e v e l o p e r ' s c o n d u c t a n d t h a t t h e p e n a l t y amount a s s e s s e d i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s o r d e r was so l o w a s t o c o n s t i t u t e an abuse of the Department's discretion. The Department, appearing as a r e s p o n d e n t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p e a l , and t h e developer, appearing as an i n t e r v e n o r , e a c h a s s e r t e d , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t i o n s , t h a t FOHC a n d Wathen were n o t a g g r i e v e d p a r t i e s e n t i t l e d t o a p p e a l f r o m the Department's o r d e r . An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n t h e c a s e was h e l d b y a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , a f t e r w h i c h t h a t o f f i c e r t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e Commission and t h e p a r t i e s h i s recommended d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l . As t o t h e t h r e s h o l d s t a n d i n g i s s u e , t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r n o t e d h i s ' s e r i o u s d o u b t s ' t h a t FOHC a n d Wathen h a d s u f f e r e d i n j u r y o r h a d b e e n t h r e a t e n e d b y i n j u r y as a r e s u l t o f t h e Department's d e c i s i o n , b u t the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r proceeded t o assess t h e m e r i t s of t h e appeal, o p i n i n g t h a t t h e Department s h o u l d have imposed a $21,325 penalty against the developer. A f t e r c o u n s e l f o r t h e Department, f o r t h e d e v e l o p e r , a n d f o r FOHC a n d Wathen h a d f i l e d objections t o the hearing o f f i c e r ' s proposed order, t h e C o m m i s s i o n , b y m a j o r i t y v o t e , i s s u e d on A u g u s t 21, 2009, a f i n a l o r d e r r e j e c t i n g t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r p r e p a r e d by t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e appeal brought b y FOHC a n d Wathen should be d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g , and d e c l i n i n g t o r u l e on t h e s u b s t a n t i v e m e r i t s o f t h e a p p e a l . " 71 So. 3 d a t 674-75. FOHC a n d Wathen a p p e a l e d the Montgomery Circuit from t h e Commission's order t o Court, which entered a judgment p u r p o r t i n g t o a d d r e s s the m e r i t s o f t h e Department's September 2008 o r d e r r a t h e r t h a n t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s A u g u s t 2009 o r d e r a n d to direct developer. that a new penalty In our previous be assessed against o p i n i o n , we c o n c l u d e d 4 the that the 2110410 a n d 2110411 c i r c u i t c o u r t had e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n of standing and had usurped Commission correct. court an t o determine the primary whether jurisdiction t h e Department's of the order was We remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t (a) " t o d e t e r m i n e aggrieved person w h e t h e r FOHC o r Wathen i s a p a r t y o r entitled to j u d i c i a l review of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n s o as t o i n v o k e t h a t court's subject-matter determines t h a t such determine whether jurisdiction"; subject-matter FOHC or Wathen (b) " i f t h e jurisdiction had court exists, standing to to seek a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s o r d e r " ; a n d (c) " i f the court determines that FOHC and/or Wathen indeed had s t a n d i n g t o seek a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w , t o e n t e r a judgment i n compliance w i t h § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] a n d t o remand the t o t h e Commission cause administrative appeal." After to decide the merits of the 71 So. 3d a t 677-78. the issuance of this court's certificate of judgment i n t h e e a r l i e r a p p e a l , FOHC a n d Wathen moved f o r t h e entry judgment of a summary in their affirmative determinations as t o t h e f i r s t addressed court to the c i r c u i t on favor, seeking and second i s s u e s remand and a judgment r e m a n d i n g t h e c a u s e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n on t h e merits, and f i l e d briefs i n support 5 of their p o s i t i o n ; the 2110410 and 2110411 developer filed Department and a response in the Commission opposition, jointly. as The did the circuit court e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on December 20, 2011, i n w h i c h t h a t court c o n c l u d e d t h a t FOHC and Wathen were " ' p e r s o n s a g g r i e v e d ' u n d e r Ala. so Code 1975, § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 7 ( c ) , " and t h e A l a b a m a as to be Department's "entitled order administrative remanded to administrative and " e n t i t l e d decision Constitution review to j u d i c i a l of the Commission" ; o f " the review of the the cause t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r a d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s . developer, the Department, and the Commission have was The again appealed. The Department generally assert because, they say, Commission l e v e l a result, the jurisdiction" the that and the Commission, the c i r c u i t Wathen court's failed circuit court never briefs, judgment i s wrong demonstrate acquired t o r e v i e w the Commission's order. judgment, separately at the constitutional judicial incorrectly standing. assert that "judicial In contrast, approach to the attacking d e t e r m i n a t i o n s as t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , however, their any t h r e a t e n e d o r a c t u a l i n j u r y and t h a t , as developer takes a point-by-point court's to in that circuit court's statutory j u d i c i a l , Both sets this court of and appellants, i s to apply a d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w t o the Commission's n o - s t a n d i n g 6 2110410 and decision; 2110411 r a t h e r , the correctly note, intermediate deference presents rulings on on So. start a See 2d 863, with standing, pure that appeal. Shoemake, 656 We i s s u e of the FOHC and question issue are Medical 865 as of not Ass'n proposition that, law, and entitled to Alabama v. of ( A l a . C i v . App. Wathen 1995). for a person to demonstrate s t a n d i n g to seek r e l i e f i n the c o u r t s of Alabama, that person must particularized protected injury show an "injury in fact" interest"; and "'(1) the (2) a actual "an "causal concrete i n v a s i o n of a connection c o n d u c t c o m p l a i n e d o f " ; and and legally between (3) a the likelihood t h a t t h e i n j u r y w i l l be " r e d r e s s e d by a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n . " ' " Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So. 2d 288, 293 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g S t i f f v. A l a b a m a A l c o h o l i c B e v e r a g e C o n t r o l Bd., So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Ala. Defenders of W i l d l i f e , elements of an actual redressability, controversy" III of which the or have United minima, See Mobile Hollywood 641 504 U.S. quoting in 555, 560-61 imminent turn injury, their origins Lujan (1992)). Those causation, in the v. "case and or i n t e r p r e t i v e jurisprudence p e r t a i n i n g to A r t i c l e constitutional Florida, 2003), 878 F. 3d States at least Estates, 1259, 1265 7 Constitution, as to Ltd. (11th the v. amount judicial Seminole C i r . 2011); to branch. Tribe see of also 2110410 and Pharmacia 2110411 C o r p . v. Suggs, 932 So. 2d 95, 97 n.4 (indicating t h a t S e c t i o n 139 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 similarly empowers t h i s s t a t e ' s j u d i c i a r y t o " ' d e c i d e d i s c r e t e c a s e s controversies facts'" involving r a t h e r than particular answering parties and abstract questions) and specific (quoting A l a b a m a Power Co. v. C i t i z e n s o f A l a b a m a , 740 So. (Ala. v. S e c r e t a r y o f 19 9 9 ) ) ) ; b u t see C l i m a x Molybdenum Co. Labor, 703 F.2d 447, 451 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1983) 2d 371, 381 (indicating that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a r e n o t b o u n d by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l "case or c o n t r o v e r s y " r e q u i r e m e n t s ) . The issue principal of proposed 1975, case standing of i n which this persons who are not examined subject § 22-22A-5(18)c., i s Alabama Department of 2d to the a c i v i l - p e n a l t y o r d e r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t u n d e r A l a . Code Management v. L e g a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l So. c o u r t has 369 ( A l a . C i v . App. assessed certain civil emission standards, Assistance Foundation, 2007) LEAF, t h e D e p a r t m e n t p r o p o s e d (hereinafter a consent penalties after which a "LEAF"). 973 In o r d e r t h a t w o u l d have against third w r i t t e n comments o b j e c t i n g t o t h e p r o p o s e d t h a t the proposed Environmental a violator of person submitted o r d e r and requested o r d e r be r e v i s e d b e f o r e i t s a d o p t i o n . After the proposed o r d e r had b e e n i s s u e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t w i t h o u t change, third the person requested 8 a hearing before the 2110410 and 2110411 Commission hearing on the request, matter; the averring s t a n d i n g because, the Department that the objected third Department s a i d , the to person third the lacked person had n o t s u f f e r e d any t h r e a t e n e d o r a c t u a l harm as a r e s u l t o f the D e p a r t m e n t ' s o r d e r and was and not " a g g r i e v e d " by the o r d e r , t h e C o m m i s s i o n e n t e r e d an o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e Department's p o s i t i o n . However, a f t e r t h e t h i r d p e r s o n sought j u d i c i a l review of the Commission's o r d e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t , in i t s judgment r e v e r s i n g the Commission's o r d e r , that the third because, the aggrieved by person circuit the had standing court said, Commission's to the order seek concluded judicial third person review had d i s m i s s i n g the been hearing request. After of this the Department appealed court participating prepared whether by a Commission aggrieved recused judges themselves, to three. P r e s i d i n g Judge third person's i s dependent by an order to t h i s reducing The main the right to whether the a Department; the person was main opinion concluded t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g c o n t r a r y language i n the t o A c t No. 1975, §§ 397, LEAF, before third the in of considering hearing the judges number opinion Thompson, began by upon of c o u r t , two title A l a . A c t s 2003, w h i c h had m o d i f i e d A l a . Code 22-22A-5 and 22-22A-7, 9 only parties aggrieved by 2110410 a n d 2110411 o r d e r s o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t c o u l d s e e k an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g before t h e Commission review i n the c i r c u i t courts the Commission. and c o u l d subsequently of t h i s seek state of a decision of The t h i r d p e r s o n i n LEAF was d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n , n o t t o have b e e n s o a g g r i e v e d , opinion concluded entered judicial without and t h e main t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment had been subject-matter jurisdiction. In contrast, a s p e c i a l o p i n i o n a d h e r e d t o b y t h e o t h e r two s i t t i n g members o f this court took issue with some of the c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e main o p i n i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y a nonaggrieved administrative with third person hearing t h e main o p i n i o n judicial relief aggrieved party in could before that the not, s t r i c t l y three circuit person court circuit decision court's members have without court to decide does indeed p e r s o n who i s n e i t h e r t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i n g an i n q u i r y t h a t l e a d s 10 n o t seek being an judicial rationale, agreed an turn appeal the that the from a on w h e t h e r a party nor a s t a t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l - e n f o r c e m e n t agency has s t a n d i n g from the j u d i c i a r y , t o an Thus, w h i l e LEAF a majority of t h i s jurisdiction o f t h e Commission could r u l e s of law governing speaking, participating a right the Commission, b u t d i d agree review of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e actions g e n e r a l l y . did and the premise that not secure the t h i r d b a s e d upon premises this t o seek r e l i e f c o u r t back t o 2110410 a n d 2110411 t h e c o r e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e t h r e e e l e m e n t s i d e n t i f i e d i n Ex parte HealthSouth In this are present case, as t o FOHC a n d Wathen. the developer, c i r c u i t court erred i n determining hear the appeal taken of that presented i n the f i r s t i n HealthSouth contention, appeal. In order we must turn c a u s a t i o n and t o assess the to the record 2 As we n o t e d i n o u r o p i n i o n case, t h a t i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o are missing. soundness that the b y FOHC a n d Wathen, a r g u e s t h a t two o f the three elements s e t f o r t h redressability i n contending i n the f i r s t appeal i n this " [ a ] l t h o u g h § 41-22-20 s e t s f o r t h a t w o - s t e p p r o c e s s f o r securing judicial petition for judicial filing review" that review of a n o t i c e of appeal includes with the f i l i n g the c i r c u i t of a court, "the t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 30 days has been h e l d s u f f i c i e n t under § 22-22A-7(c)(6) t o o b t a i n review of a f i n a l order o f t h e Commission" under Ex parte P l u m b e r s & S t e a m f i t t e r s , L o c a l 52, 622 So. 2d 347 ( A l a . 1993) . 71 So. 3d a t 676. B e c a u s e no j u d i c i a l - r e v i e w f i l e d , u n l i k e i n most a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p e a l s , petition t h e r e c o r d made i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e c o n t a i n s no i n i t i a l that might otherwise pleading d e t a i l t h e c o n t e n t i o n s o f FOHC a n d Wathen T h i s c o u r t has, by order, i n c o r p o r a t e d the r e c o r d f i r s t appeal i n t o the record i n t h i s appeal. 2 the was 11 from 2110410 and 2110411 w i t h r e s p e c t t o how the o r d e r of the Commission d e c l i n i n g disturb of penalty the order the Department a g a i n s t the developer administrative r e c o r d does aggrieves contain the assessing them. their s t a n d i n g t o seek r e v i e w $20,000 However, of the contended, Department's order: "[FOHC] i s an A l a b a m a n o n - p r o f i t , membership c o r p o r a t i o n the purposes of which are to promote the understanding, a p p r e c i a t i o n , enjoyment, p r o t e c t i o n and s t e w a r d s h i p o f H u r r i c a n e C r e e k and a l l i t s w a t e r r e s o u r c e s ; and t o m a i n t a i n and r e s t o r e t h e c h e m i c a l , physical, and b i o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y of Hurricane Creek's a q u a t i c ecosystems. Members o f H u r r i c a n e C r e e k use and enjoy t h e unnamed t r i b u t a r y of Cottondale Creek f o r r e c r e a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g but not limited to wildlife observation, nature and landscape o b s e r v a t i o n , and aesthetic enjoyment; Cottondale Creek f o r r e c r e a t i o n i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to kayaking, w i l d l i f e observation, nature and landscape o b s e r v a t i o n and photography, and aesthetic enjoyment; and Hurricane Creek for r e c r e a t i o n i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to canoeing, k a y a k i n g , f i s h i n g , swimming, w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n , n a t u r e and l a n d s c a p e o b s e r v a t i o n and photography, and a e s t h e t i c e n j o y m e n t . "... J o h n Wathen u s e s and e n j o y s Cottondale Creek f o r r e c r e a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to k a y a k i n g , w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n , n a t u r e and l a n d s c a p e observation and photography, and aesthetic enjoyment; and Hurricane Creek for recreation, i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to canoeing, kayaking, f i s h i n g , w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n , n a t u r e and l a n d s c a p e observation and photography, and aesthetic enjoyment. 12 the following pertinent a v e r m e n t s on t h e p a r t o f FOHC and Wathen t h a t , t h e y indicated a to 2110410 and 2110411 "... The v i o l a t i o n s o f NPDES R e g i s t r a t i o n No. ALR165846, [ A l a . ] A d m i n . Code. [ E n v t ' l Mgmt.] Chap. 335-6-12, and A l a . Code § 22-22-9 c o m m i t t e d by [ t h e d e v e l o p e r ] have d i m i n i s h e d the recreational and a e s t h e t i c e n j o y m e n t o f t h e unnamed t r i b u t a r y o f C o t t o n d a l e C r e e k , C o t t o n d a l e C r e e k , and Hurricane C r e e k by members o f [FOHC] and by J o h n Wathen. [FOHC and Wathen] believe that the $20,000 penalty a s s e s s e d i n O r d e r No. 08-203-MNPS i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r f u t u r e v i o l a t i o n s o f NPDES R e g i s t r a t i o n No. ALR165846, [ A l a . ] Admin. Code. [ E n v t ' l Mgmt.] Chap. 335-6-12, and A l a . Code § 22-22-9 by [ t h e d e v e l o p e r ] and i s not sufficient to redress the injuries s u f f e r e d by [FOHC and W a t h e n ] . [FOHC and Wathen's] f u t u r e r e c r e a t i o n a l use and a e s t h e t i c e n j o y m e n t o f the unnamed tributary of Cottondale Creek, C o t t o n d a l e C r e e k , and H u r r i c a n e C r e e k w i l l continue t o be d i m i n i s h e d b e c a u s e o f t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e $20,000 p e n a l t y a s s e s s e d i n O r d e r No. 08-203-MNPS i s not s u f f i c i e n t to deter f u t u r e v i o l a t i o n s . " I t i s c l e a r from the f o r e g o i n g Wathen's efforts Department or the them, b u t only developer. are As the are not t h a t t h e gravamen o f FOHC's challenging Commission to r e g u l a t e challenging actions Court noted i n the actions or not directed to of the regulate toward Lujan: "When [a] s u i t i s one c h a l l e n g i n g t h e l e g a l i t y of government a c t i o n or i n a c t i o n , the n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f f a c t s t h a t must be [shown] i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g depends c o n s i d e r a b l y upon w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f i s h i m s e l f an o b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n (or f o r g o n e a c t i o n ) a t i s s u e . ... When ... a p l a i n t i f f ' s asserted injury arises from the government's allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of r e g u l a t i o n ) o f someone e l s e , much more i s n e e d e d . I n t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e , c a u s a t i o n and r e d r e s s a b i l i t y o r d i n a r i l y h i n g e on t h e r e s p o n s e o f t h e regulated (or r e g u l a b l e ) t h i r d p a r t y t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n -- and p e r h a p s on t h e r e s p o n s e o f o t h e r s as w e l l . The existence o f one o r more o f the 13 and the 2110410 a n d 2110411 e s s e n t i a l elements of standing 'depends on t h e u n f e t t e r e d c h o i c e s made b y i n d e p e n d e n t a c t o r s n o t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s a n d whose e x e r c i s e o f b r o a d a n d l e g i t i m a t e d i s c r e t i o n t h e c o u r t s c a n n o t presume e i t h e r t o c o n t r o l o r t o p r e d i c t , ' a n d i t becomes t h e b u r d e n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o adduce f a c t s s h o w i n g t h a t t h o s e c h o i c e s have b e e n o r w i l l be made i n s u c h manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury. Thus, when t h e p l a i n t i f f i s n o t h i m s e l f t h e o b j e c t o f t h e government a c t i o n or inaction he challenges, standing i s not p r e c l u d e d , b u t i t i s o r d i n a r i l y ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y more d i f f i c u l t ' to establish." 504 U.S. a t 561-62 (citations omitted). I t s h o u l d be remembered i n t h i s r e g a r d t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e relief s o u g h t b y FOHC a n d Wathen i n t h e i r n a t u r e o f an i n c r e a s e d c i v i l filings i s i n the penalty payable to the State of Alabama w i t h r e s p e c t t o a completed v i o l a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l laws and r e g u l a t i o n s hearing officer Hurricane injury -- v i o l a t i o n s determined, caused Creek o r i t s t r i b u t a r i e s . that, the Commission's no o b j e c t i v e injury Any a e s t h e t i c o r p s y c h i c done t o Wathen o r t h e members o f FOHC r e s u l t i n g the p o s s i b l e c o n t i n u e d to from e x i s t e n c e o f t u r b i d w a t e r s downstream f r o m t h e d e v e l o p e r ' s W i l l i a m s b u r g d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l t h u s n o t be remedied; r a t h e r , those persons w i l l d e r i v e o n l y the a b s t r a c t s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t a p e r c e i v e d w r o n g d o e r s u c h as t h e d e v e l o p e r has received what might environmental v i o l a t i o n s . the injury" be v i e w e d as " j u s t desserts" f o r Such " [ r ] e l i e f t h a t does n o t remedy does n o t s a t i s f y the r e d r e s s a b i l i t y 14 element o f 2110410 a n d 2110411 standing. 83, S t e e l Co. v. C i t i z e n s f o r a B e t t e r E n v ' t , 523 U.S. 107 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . A l t h o u g h we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t c i v i l penalties t h a t a r e p a y a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c f i s c may b e n e f i t p l a i n t i f f s so as to warrant a finding of r e d r e s s a b i l i t y i f the penalties encourage a defendant t o abate c u r r e n t v i o l a t i o n s and p r e v e n t future ones, Laidlaw Environmental Services, the record divested the see g e n e r a l l y i n this case Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. 167, 186-88 reveals that I n c . v. (2000), the developer had i t s e l f b y mid-2008 o f i t s i n t e r e s t s i n a l l b u t 4 o f 47 l o t s i n the Williamsburg developer's p r i n c i p a l subdivision owner t e s t i f i e d that and t h a t the the developer i s now u n p r o f i t a b l e a n d w o u l d s t r u g g l e t o p a y e v e n t h e r e l a t i v e l y low penalty l e v i e d by t h e Department. B e c a u s e we a g r e e w i t h t h e d e v e l o p e r t h a t FOHC a n d Wathen lack standing penalties to assert against their the developer claims seeking because of a demonstrate causation and r e d r e s s a b i l i t y i n t h i s conclude circuit that jurisdiction the court t o review the order erred in additional failure to setting, we exercising o f t h e Commission d e c l i n i n g to review t h e m e r i t s o f t h e Department's c i v i l - p e n a l t y order. 3 B a s e d upon o u r c o n c l u s i o n as t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s s u e o f s t a n d i n g t o s e e k j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , we p r e t e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of o t h e r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s , i n c l u d i n g whether FOHC a n d Wathen h a d s t a n d i n g t o s e e k a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w . 3 15 2110410 a n d 2110411 Because a judgment e n t e r e d w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s v o i d and a v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , s e e LEAF, 973 So. 2d at 380, we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l s Commission, instruct taken by t h e Department, t h e and t h e d e v e l o p e r ; the c i r c u i t i n so d o i n g , court t o vacate however, i t s December 20, we 2011, j u d g m e n t a n d t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l t a k e n b y FOHC a n d Wathen. APPEALS DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 16 TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.