Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 103-9-16 Vtec Morrisville Hydroelectric Proj Water Quality ENTRY REGARDING MOTIONS Count 1, ANR Decision Other (103-9-16 Vtec) Count 2, ANR Decision Other (103-9-16 Vtec) Count 3, ANR Decision Other (103-9-16 Vtec) Title: Filer: Attorney: Filed Date: Motion to Amend Statement of Questions (Motion 3) American Whitewater & VPC, Inc Daniel P. Richardson December 22, 2016 No response filed Title: Filer: Attorney: Filed Date: Motion to Amend and Clarify Statement of Questions (Motion 4) Morrisville Water & Light Gregory M. Eaton, Clara E. Conklin December 22, 2016 No response filed The motions are GRANTED. On December 22, 2016, appellant Morrisville Water & Light Department (MWLD) and cross-appellant American Whitewater and Vermont Paddlers Club, Inc. (AW/VPC) each filed motions to amend their respective Statements of Questions. No response was filed to either motion. A Statement of Questions “functions as a cross between a complaint filed before the Civil Division and a statement of issues filed before the Vermont Supreme Court.” In re Conlon CU Permit, No. 2-1-12 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct Envtl. Div. May 10, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (citation omitted). Like a civil complaint, it puts other parties on notice of the issues to be decided during litigation; like a supreme court appeal, it also limits the scope of issues to be addressed. Id. We may grant a motion to amend a Statement of Questions pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5(f). As with motions to amend complaints under V.R.C.P. 15, we generally take a liberal view in granting motions to amend Statements of Questions. Buchwald Home Occupation CU Permit, No. 181-12-13 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 1, 2014) (Walsh, J.). We may deny a motion to amend if there “has been undue delay or bad faith by the moving party, [if] the amendment will prejudice other parties, [or if] the amendment is futile.” Id. (citing Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, ¶ 4, 184 Vt. 1). We may deny a motion on grounds of prejudice, “for 1 example, where a motion to amend [is] submitted after trial, after a statement of questions [has] already been amended, or after a motion for summary judgment [has been] denied.” In re All Metals Recycling, Inc. Discretionary Permit Application, No. 171-11-11 Vtec, slip op. at 10 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 23, 2012) (Walsh, J.). AW/VPC moves to amend its Statement of Questions by consolidating Questions 3 and 4, by defining terms in other questions, and by re-phrasing certain questions for clarity. MWLD seeks to amend its Statement of Questions by consolidating Questions 2 and 3; striking Question 8; adding citations to rules and statutes to amended Questions 3, 4, 5, and 12; and changing the wording of amended Questions 12 and 13. The proposed amendments appear designed to clarify the issues on appeal. They have also been agreed to by, or incorporate suggestions from, the other parties. The parties have not yet engaged in discovery and are only beginning to engage in motion practice. In motions to dismiss and for summary judgment the parties refer to, and appear to accept, the amended Statements of Questions. We see no delay or bad faith in the motions to amend. The other parties’ acceptance of the motions suggests that they will not be prejudiced by the amendments. There is also no indication the amendments are futile. The motions to amend also appear to serve the purpose of amending Statements of Questions, i.e. to clarify and focus the issues to be litigated. For these reasons, Motions 3 and 4 are GRANTED. So ordered. Electronically signed on February 07, 2017 at 03:22 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). _________________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Superior Court, Environmental Division Notifications: Gregory M. Eaton (ERN 1720), Clara E. Conklin (ERN 7978), Attorneys for Appellant Morrisville Water & Light Dept Leslie A. Welts (ERN N/A), Jennifer S. Duggan (ERN 7163), Attorneys for Interested Person Agency of Natural Resources Daniel P. Richardson (ERN 1502), Ryan P. Kane (ERN 6705), Attorneys for Cross Appellant American Whitewater & VPC, Inc Interested Person Barrett M. Singer Interested Person Christine Hallquist Anthony L. Iarrapino (ERN 4781), Attorney for Interested Person Friends of Green River Reservoir For Informational Purposes Only Michael J. Wickenden Jon Groveman (ERN 5336), Attorney for Cross Appellant Vermont Natural Resources Council Robert J. Carpenter (ERN 8064), Attorney for Cross Appellant VT Council of Trout Unlimited Interested Person Town of Morristownnlow 2

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.