Alabama Department of Enviromental Management and Alabama Environmental Management Commission v. Friends of Hurricane Creek and John Wathen

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 4/08/2011 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 be 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, 2010-2011 2090633 Alabama Department o f Environmental Management and Alabama Environmental Management Commission v. F r i e n d s of Hurricane Creek and John Wathen F r i e n d s of Hurricane Creek and John Wathen v. Alabama Department o f Environmental Management and Alabama Environmental Management Commission 2090646 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 Court (CV-09-1320) PITTMAN, J u d g e . These three appeals have been j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery taken from a summary C i r c u i t Court i n j u d i c i a l - review proceedings challenging the correctness of a decision of t h e Alabama Environmental Commission") d e c l i n i n g Alabama Department Management to review of an o r d e r Environmental Department") a s s e s s i n g monetary Commission ("the rendered by t h e Management ("the s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t SDW, I n c . ("the d e v e l o p e r " ) , a r e s i d e n t i a l developer t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y discharged certain tributary") 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 o f C o t t o n d a l e Creek, a body o f w a t e r t h a t i n t o H u r r i c a n e Creek. B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t flows the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d , as t o t h e a p p e a l taken by t h e Department and t h e Commission i n case no. 2 0 9 0 6 3 3 2 and t h e a p p e a l taken by t h e 2090633 and 2090646 d e v e l o p e r i n c a s e no. 2 0 9 0 4 6 6 , we judgment dismiss and as remand moot H u r r i c a n e Creek the vacate the c i r c u i t for further cross-appeal the cause taken ("FOHC") and court's proceedings; by the J o h n Wathen (who Friends had we of initiated t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - r e v i e w and t h e j u d i c i a l - r e v i e w p r o c e e d i n g s ) i n c a s e no. 2090633. Under Alabama primarily law, responsible legislation, including A c t , A l a . Code 1975, the Department for the i s the administering Alabama Water § 22-22-1 e t s e q . state environmental Pollution The D e p a r t m e n t i s v e s t e d w i t h t h e to civil penalty to any Control See A l a . Code § 22-22A-2(1). "assess[] a agency person 1975, discretion who violates" various environmental s t a t u t e s , i n c l u d i n g those p e r t a i n i n g to water pollution. A l a . Code 1975, § 22-22A-5(18)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 exceed $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 total, and each Alabama § day law, that a violation continues i s deemed, under t o be a separate violation. A l a . Code 1975, 22-22A-5(18)c. Pursuant to n o t i c e s of v i o l a t i o n sent to the developer i n J u l y 2006 and J a n u a r y 2008 as t o v a r i o u s c l a i m e d v i o l a t i o n s o f 3 2090633 a n d 2090646 b e s t management p r a c t i c e s a s t o i t s W i l l i a m s b u r g in Tuscaloosa County, t h e Department, 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 should i n September determining pay t h e Department a c i v i l development 2008, that the developer 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 , such as the discharge of sediments from the development, t h a t h a d been o b s e r v e d d u r i n g inspections. Williamsburg t h e Department's The D e p a r t m e n t a n d t h e d e v e l o p e r were t h e s o l e parties to that administrative proceeding. Under Alabama l a w , t h e Commission i s the tribunal statutory a u t h o r i t y t o "develop environmental p o l i c y s t a t e " and t o "hear and determine a p p e a l s " "aggrieved by [D]epartment." 22-22A-7(c). proceedings, disapprov[e] ... administrative A l a . Code 1975, The with for the brought by persons action[s] of the §§ 2 2 - 2 2 A - 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) a n d (4) a n d Commission, has t h e a u t h o r i t y in administrative-appeal to "modify[], approv[e] or the[D]epartment's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . " A l a . Code 1975, § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 7 ( c ) ( 3 ) . I n O c t o b e r 2008, FOHC a n d Wathen f i l e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e appeal with t h e Commission c h a l l e n g i n g Department's order the propriety of the 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 4 2090633 a n d 2090646 contended t h a t t h e Department's order make c e r t a i n adverse arbitrarily failed to f i n d i n g s as t o t h e d e v e l o p e r ' s conduct and 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 a b u s e discretion. The D e p a r t m e n t , a p p e a r i n g administrative intervenor, appeal, of t h e Department's as a r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e and t h e d e v e l o p e r , appearing each 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 substantive 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 entitled to appeal from t h e Department's a s an parties order. 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 An officer, a f t e r which 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 . threshold standing " s e r i o u s doubts" issue, the hearing officer As t o t h e noted h i 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 had b e e n t h r e a t e n e d b y i n j u r y a s a r e s u l t o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s decision, but the hearing officer proceeded t o assess the m e r i t s o f t h e a p p e a l , 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 counsel f o r t h e Department, and Wathen penalty had f i l e d proposed order, against the developer. f o r the developer, objections After a n d f o r FOHC to the hearing officer's t h e Commission, by m a j o r i t y v o t e , i s s u e d on 5 2090633 and 2090646 A u g u s t 21, prepared 2009, a f i n a l by rejecting the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , b r o u g h t by FOHC and the proposed c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the Wathen s h o u l d be dismissed order appeal for lack of 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 s t a n d i n g , and the order of appeal. Section 41-22-27(f), A l a . Code Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e that "judicial review of any 1975, Act order a p o r t i o n of ("the of AAPA"), the ... the provides [C]ommission m o d i f y i n g , a p p r o v i n g o r d i s a p p r o v i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n of the ... provisions Department ... shall f o r review of f i n a l be i n accordance w i t h agency d e c i s i o n s i n c o n t e s t e d cases i n [ t h e AAPA a t ] S e c t i o n s 41-22-20 and Code 1975, subsection "[e]xcept provided in 41-22-21," A l a . subdivision (c) o f S e c t i o n 22-22A-7," A l a . Code 1975. 22-22A-7(c)(6), Commission as ... [D]epartment's (6) approving administrative action" or is disapproving final 1 of Section i n t u r n , p r o v i d e s t h a t "[a]ny order of the modifying, the and ... the "is E x p a r t e M a r s h a l l D u r b i n & Co. o f J a s p e r , I n c . , 537 So. 2d 496, 498 ( A l a . 1988), h e l d t h a t i f the Commission d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a p e r s o n who has s o u g h t t o t a k e an a p p e a l f r o m an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o do s o , t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l l i k e w i s e c o n s t i t u t e a f i n a l order subject to j u d i c i a l review. 1 6 2090633 a n d 2090646 appealable judicial such review appeal order." t o t h e Montgomery County on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i s f i l e d within Circuit Court ... f o r record provided 30 d a y s a f t e r that i s s u a n c e o f such 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 j u d i c i a l review, i n v o l v i n g the f i l i n g of a notice of a p p e a l w i t h t h e agency and a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w w i t h the circuit circuit § the f i l i n g of a notice court within 22-22A-7(c)(6) Commission. 622 court, of appeal to the 30 d a y s h a s b e e n h e l d s u f f i c i e n t to obtain review See Ex p a r t e P l u m b e r s of a f i n a l order under of the & S t e a m f i t t e r s , L o c a l 52, So. 2d 347 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . On A u g u s t 26, 2009, f i v e days a f t e r t h e Commission had i s s u e d i t s order d e c l i n i n g t o hear t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e appeal b r o u g h t b y FOHC a n d Wathen on t h e b a s i s o f l a c k o f 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 , FOHC a n d Wathen, t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , filed a document i n t h e Montgomery Circuit Court labeled " N o t i c e o f Appeal from Agency t o C i r c u i t C o u r t " t h a t s t a t e d as follows: "NOTICE I S HEREBY GIVEN, p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code § 2 2 - 2 2 A - 7 ( c ) ( 6 ) , t h a t [ F O H C ] a n d ... Wathen a p p e a l t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r Montgomery C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , f r o m t h e o r d e r o f t h e ... C o m m i s s i o n a n d f i n a l a c t i o n o f t h e ... D e p a r t m e n t ... e n t e r e d i n t h e matter o f F r i e n d s o f H u r r i c a n e Creek, e t a l . v. 7 2090633 a n d 2090646 A l a b a m a Dep't o f E n v t l . Mgmt., e t a l . , D o c k e t No. 09-02 ( E n v t ' l Mgmt. Comm'n) a t t a c h e d hereto." On S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, FOHC a n d Wathen f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e Commission's order reach the merits o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p e a l was i n e r r o r a s a matter of law. developer filed The C o m m i s s i o n , September purporting 2008 the c i r c u i t t o determine that order, averring and t h e that FOHC t o b r i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . On M a r c h 10, 2 0 1 0 , a f t e r a h e a r i n g , judgment t h e Department, responses i n opposition, and Wathen l a c k e d s t a n d i n g a declining to court entered t h e Department's n o t t h e Commission's August 2009 d e c i s i o n d e c l i n i n g t o hear t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e appeal from t h a t order, was e r r o n e o u s , citing A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 41-22-20(k) (pertaining t o j u d i c i a l review g e n e r a l l y ) ; that court r u l e d t h a t t h e $20,000 p e n a l t y a s s e s s e d by t h e Department i n t h e September 2008 o r d e r was b e l o w t h e s t a t u t o r i l y minimum p e n a l t y After the entry Commission a n d d i r e c t e d t h a t a new p e n a l t y of that jointly 2 0 9 0 6 3 3 ) ; FOHC filed a n d Wathen judgment, a further notice filed a prescribed be a s s e s s e d . t h e Department of and t h e appeal (case no. cross-appeal (case no. 2090633); and t h e d e v e l o p e r f i l e d a s e p a r a t e n o t i c e o f appeal 8 2090633 and (case no. 2090646). d e c i s i o n by On 2090646 this appeal, The with the Commission, Ala. Code the circuit 1975, § Department, court and 41-22-20(l), (which i n t h i s case i s the Commission's order and Wathen's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p e a l ) , writing ... the the erred i n f a i l i n g which to provides t h a t , " [ u ] n l e s s the court a f f i r m s the d e c i s i o n of the in for court. developer contend t h a t the comply a p p e a l s have b e e n c o n s o l i d a t e d agency" d i s m i s s i n g FOHC "the c o u r t s h a l l set reasons f o r i t s d e c i s i o n . " We out addressed the e f f e c t of t h a t p r o v i s i o n i n Alabama S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d v. C a r s o n , 939 we reversed rendered the So. 2d 49, 51 ( A l a . C i v . App. a judgment e n t e r e d by the judgment i n t h i s 2006), i n which same t r i a l judge case: " I n a l o n g l i n e o f c a s e s s i n c e t h e 1981 a d o p t i o n o f t h e AAPA, we have r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e with § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) on pain of reversal. For e x a m p l e , i n A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. N o r r e d , 497 So. 2d 176, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , we r e v i e w e d a j u d g m e n t r e v e r s i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r in which the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , that '"[t]he Court i s s a t i s f i e d that according to t h e t e s t i m o n y and e x h i b i t s p r e s e n t e d a t ... [an administrative hearing], the conclusions and recommendations of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r are c o r r e c t and t h a t t h e [ a g e n c y ] was i n e r r o r . " ' I n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h a t s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s was insufficient u n d e r § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) and i n r e v e r s i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t , we n o t e d t h e l i m i t e d and 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 due t o be a p p l i e d i n c i r c u i t c o u r t s u n d e r t h e 9 that 2090633 a n d 2090646 AAPA. 497 So. 2d a t 176-77; a c c o r d , Alabama M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v . B e v e r l y E n t e r s . , 504 So. 2d 1 2 1 1 , 1213 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( ' t h i s c o u r t , w i t h o u t a l i s t i n g by t h e c i r c u i t court o f i t s reasons f o r r e j e c t i n g t h e Agency's d e c i s i o n t h a t reimbursement s h o u l d be d e n i e d , c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c i r c u i t court complied with the prescribed review s t a n d a r d ' ) ; A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v . P e o p l e s , 549 So. 2d 504, 506 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) ('the [ c i r c u i t ] court cannot merely r e c i t e t h e s t a t u t o r y grounds f o r r e v e r s a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s e t f o r t h i n § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( k ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] when s e t t i n g a s i d e an a g e n c y ' s f i n d i n g s ' ) ; s e e a l s o A l a b a m a R e n a l S t o n e I n s t . v . T r u s t e e s o f S u s i e P a r k e r S t r i n g f e l l o w Mem. Hosp., 680 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e o f A l a b a m a Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e Bd. v . B u t l e r , 706 So. 2 d 1267, 1268 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; c f . A l a b a m a Dep't o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n v. M a r s h a l l , 741 So. 2d 434, 436 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( a l t h o u g h judgment s t a t i n g o n l y t h a t agency's findings a n d c o n c l u s i o n s were c o n t r a r y t o t h e evidence contravened § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) , appeal from t h a t j u d g m e n t was d i s m i s s e d as u n t i m e l y ) . " The circuit contravenes court's § 41-22-20 ( l ) judgment i n this i n s o f a r as i t p u r p o r t s the d e c i s i o n o f t h e Commission w i t h o u t to the substantial, Wathen evidenced order not only t o reverse a s much a s a r e f e r e n c e disputed had standing Department's case question t o seek a d m i n i s t r a t i v e review a question o f whether A s s i s t a n c e Foundation, Management v . L e g a l Inc., of the of s u b s t a n t i a l import, by t h e absence o f a m a j o r i t y r a t i o n a l e Department o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l FOHC o r as i n Alabama Environmental 973 So. 2 d 369 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 10 2090633 a n d 2090646 2007) but i t a l s o usurps Commission under determine, A l a . Code i n the f i r s t o r d e r was c o r r e c t . determination judicial review error has been policy Co., committed [such impliedly t h e Department's q u e s t i o n open t o foreclose as t h e Commission], c o r r e c t e d , from enforcing the t o i t s charge." to t h a t "an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i s imbedded a l e g a l not ofthe 22-22A-7(c)(3), i n s t a n c e , whether does agency jurisdiction 1975, § I ti s well settled i n which administrative the primary [an] after its legislative FCC v . P o t t s v i l l e Broad. 309 U.S. 134, 145 ( 1 9 4 0 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . We remand t h e c a u s e f o r the c i r c u i t FOHC entitled t o 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 of Commission jurisdiction i s a party (a) t o d e t e r m i n e whether the o r Wathen court so a s t o i n v o k e (see Alabama o r an a g g r i e v e d person that court's subject-matter Department of Environmental Management v. L e g a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s i s t a n c e F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . , 973 So. 2 d a t 380 (Pittman, J . , concurring i n the r e s u l t , j o i n e d b y Thomas, J . ) ) ; (b) i f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n or exists, Wathen h a d s t a n d i n g t o seek 11 t h a t such t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r FOHC administrative review of the 2090633 a n d 2090646 D e p a r t m e n t ' s o r d e r ; a n d (c) i f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s and/or review, Wathen indeed had s t a n d i n g t h a t FOHC t o seek a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t o e n t e r a judgment i n compliance with § 41-22-20(l) and t o remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o d e c i d e t h e m e r i t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e appeal. We d i s m i s s the cross-appeal t a k e n b y FOHC a n d Wathen a s moot. 2 0 90 633 JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS; CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED. 2090646 JUDGMENT VACATED AND INSTRUCTIONS. B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, without P . J . , and Moore, J . , c o n c u r writings. 12 i n the result,

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.