MISSOULA COUNTY v AMERICAN ASPHAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No, 84-559 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 MISSOULA COUPJTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsAMERICAN ASPHALT, INC ., Defendant and Respondent, APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Robert L. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Snavely & Phillips, Missoula, Montana Worden, Thane & Haines; Ronald Bender, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Clerk - March 14, 1985 June 25, 1985 J u s t i c e L. Court. Mr. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d C. t h e Opinion o f M i s s o u l a County a p p e a l s from a judgment Judicial Missoula District, 76-1-113 County, holding o p e r a t i o n s from c o u n t y z o n i n g and p l a n n i n g . Department American Asphalt section 82-4-401, of t h e Fourth that sections MCA exempted American A s p h a l t ' s m i n i n g and 76-2-209, The the of under State the seq., et American A s p h a l t began required American Lands Montana MCA, W e affirm. issued Open on Cut to create permit Mining September excavating gravel. Asphalt a 1, to Act, 1982 and T h i s Department visual a and sound b a r r i e r o f t o p s o i l ; t o p l a n t t r e e s t o r e d u c e v i s u a l and sound impact; fence t o u s e d u s t s u p p r e s s a n t on t h e r o a d t o t h e p i t ; the entering area or to leaving protect children; the mine only and on a to drive specific to trucks route in o r d e r t o a v o i d d r i v i n g by a n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l . The citizen's Missoula complaint, Planning asked Office, in permit. When excavate gravel without preliminary 14, a to a them t o c e a s e e x c a v a t i o n w i t h i n t h e C l a r k Fork R i v e r F l o o d p l a i n a r e a u n t i l floodplain response American permit, they obtained a Asphalt Missoula the District Court denied injunction but ordered American the Asphalt to County s o u g h t a injunction t o h a l t t h e operation. 1982, continued On September request to apply for an for a floodplain permit. American A s p h a l t a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d a p e r m i t on November 9 , 1982 from t h e Board o f County Commissioners. The f l o o d p l a i n p e r m i t was l i m i t e d t o g r a v e l e x t r a c t i o n u n l e s s t h e c o u r t decided o t h e r proposed a c t i v i t i e s w e r e a l l o w a b l e under the applicable zoning and comprehensive planning for the area. The subject property was zoned for single family r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s w i t h a l i m i t o f one d w e l l i n g p e r a c r e p r i o r to the grave1 extraction by American Asphalt. The uses d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e M i s s o u l a Urban Area Comprehensive P l a n a r e r u r a l low d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l , p a r k s and open s p a c e . extraction, gravel processing, and asphalt and p r o d u c t i o n a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d u s e s i n t h i s zone. Gravel concrete The County regulations currently allow gravel extraction only i n c e r t a i n areas with special a exception g r a v e l , such a s washing, permit. crushing, site. is Asphalt and of s c r e e n i n g , c r u s h i n g and m i x i n g w i t h a s p h a l t o i l o r cement i s a l l o w e d American Processing, only i n industrial currently s o r t i n g gravel with extracting, zones. washing, s p e c i a l e q u i p m e n t on t h e They i n t e n d t o l o c a t e a n a s p h a l t b a t c h p l a n t i n which asphalt oil i s added t o t h e sorted gravel and a concrete b a t c h p l a n t i n which cement i s added t o t h e s o r t e d g r a v e l on the site as well. According American A s p h a l t a t t r i a l , to these "mining", activities "use" and presented by t h e a s p h a l t and c o n c r e t e b a t c h i n g The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found a r e p a r t of t h e recovery process. that testimony are contained "recovery" as within commonly terms the used in the industry. M i s s o u l a County, 12, i n a n amended c o m p l a i n t f i l e d O c t o b e r 1982, s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment above. The c a s e was h e a r d without a jury, on t h e i s s u e s t a t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , on J u n e 28 and 29, 1984. sitting On J u l y 3 1 , 1984, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment in favor of American County a p p e a l s from t h a t p a r t o f Asphalt. t h e judgment Missoula holding t h a t sections 76-1-113 operations from and the 76-2-209, zoning exempt MCA and all comprehensive mining planning of M i s s o u l a County. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e : (1) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t s e c t i o n s 76-1-113 and 76-2-209, grave1 operations to MCA exempt from M i s s o u l a American Asphalt's County z o n i n g and p l a n n i n g regulations? (2) Did the District Court correctly find that the a c t i v i t i e s o f American A s p h a l t were w i t h i n t h e " c o m p l e t e u s e , d e v e l o p m e n t and r e c o v e r y o f a m i n e r a l r e s o u r c e " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 76-2-209, Section MCA? 76-2-209, legislation, part MCA, provides: "No of the resolution complete u s e , or enabling rule adopted . . . shall pursuant t o the provisions of t h i s p a r t the zoning prevent o r recovery of any m i n e r a l , development, f o r e s t , o r a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s by t h e owner t h e r e o f . " chapter on p l a n n i n g c o n t a i n s a n e a r l y s e c t i o n 76-1-113, shall be deemed MCA which s t a t e s : to authorize an The identical provision, "Nothing i n t h i s c h a p t e r ordinance, resolution, development, r u l e which would p r e v e n t t h e c o m p l e t e u s e , or or r e c o v e r y o f any m i n e r a l , f o r e s t , o r a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s by t h e owner t h e r e o f . " Missoula prohibit the County contends regulation of that the these statutes location and do n o t manner of p e r f o r m a n c e o f g r a v e l e x t r a c t i o n and p r o c e s s i n g a c t i v i t i e s ; the legislature r e s o u r c e s ; and by not any form o f exercising recovery'' did the intend planning phrase to prohibit and "complete zoning use, counties over from mineral development, or does n o t i n c l u d e t h e range o f a c t i v i t i e s proposed American Asphalt. American Asphalt contends that the statutes prohibit any rule or regulation under zoning and planning law which would interfere with a property owner's complete use, development and recovery of a mineral resource and Missoula County's interpretation would render the statutes a nullity. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intention of the legislature controls. Section 1-2-102, MCA; Montana Department of Revenue v. American Smelting and Refining Co. (1977), 173 Mont. 316, 324, 567 P.2d 901, 906, appeal dismissed 434 U.S. 985, 98 S.Ct. 884, 54 L.Ed.2d 793, and Haker v. Southwestern Railway Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 364, 578 P.2d 724. The intention of the legislature must first be determined from the plain meaning of the words used. Haker, 578 P.2d at 727; State ex rel. Sol v. Bakker (Mont. 1982), 649 P.2d 456, 39 St.Rep. 1471; and Tongue River Electric Co-op, Inc. v. Montana Power Co. (1981), 636 P.2d 862, 864, 38 St.Rep. 2032. If the intent of the statute cannot be determined from the plain meaning, the court then may resort to other rules of statutory construction. 649 P.2d at 459. State --- Sol, ex rel. The District Court concluded that the statutes in question were not of doubtful meaning and that the statutes ex~mpted all mining operations from Missoula County's zoning and planning authority. However, neither statute expressly prohibits regulation of mineral processing or extraction. The statutes only say that no regulation shall prevent the complete use, development or recovery of certain natural resources. An illustration of plain language expressly prohibiting regulation of particular land uses is found in section 76-2-109, MCA. That section states: "No planning district or recommendations adopted under this part shall regulate lands used of f o r grazing, " timber. horticulture, agriculture, Section 76-1-113 and o r t h e growing 76-2-209, MCA, by c o m p a r i s o n , d o n o t p r o h i b i t r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e named r e s o u r c e s by their plain imposed by language, the they county merely cannot say result any in regulations preventing the c o m p l e t e u s e , development o r r e c o v e r y o f t h e named r e s o u r c e s . Part of clear the and unambiguous. They d e m o n s t r a t e for the owner of the legislature's a c t i v i t i e s must o c c u r on s i t e i n awareness t h a t a range o f order these statutes is l e g i s l a t i v e purpose o f mineral, timber, or agricultural r e s o u r c e s t o b e n e f i t and t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d for counties to have having t h a t b e n e f i t . are that cannot the power to prevent the owner from However, what t h e r a n g e o f a c t i v i t i e s be is prevented, by no means clear and unambiguous. is There struction of recovery of ambiguity the in phrase any m i n e r a l the interpretation "complete use, . . . resource" t o g r a v e l e x t r a c t i o n and p r o c e s s i n g . and con- development, or and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n In order t o interpret t h i s p h r a s e w i t h i n t h e p l a i n meaning r u l e " t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d must be reasonably and logically interpreted, t h e i r u s u a l and o r d i n a r y meaning." (1975), 168 Mont. 334, 339, 544 g i v i n g words I n re M a t t e r o f McCabe P.2d 825, 828. If the s t a t u t e s p l a i n l y expressed l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t without s t r a i n ing interpretation, no e x t e n s i o n beyond Adams v . Morton (C.A.Mont. meaning would be r e q u i r e d . 581 F.2d 1314, 1320, c e r t . d e n i e d . Belknap I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n v . S.Ct. 1498, meanings or 59 L.Ed.2d other legislative intent, that plain 771. related popular 1978), Gros V e n t r e T r i b e o f F o r t U.S. If statutes ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 440 U.S. we in 958, 99 resort to technical order to ascertain t h e n w e a r e no l o n g e r w i t h i n t h e p l a i n meaning rule. The District Court here relied on the technical meanings of the words within the gravel industry in order to interpret and apply the statutes. A reasonable construction of these broad statutes depends, to an extent, on the circumstances in which they are applied. Therefore, we must look to industry practices to discern the extent to which the legislature authorized the regulation of "use, development or recovery." Considering the legislative intent to not prevent the owner of the resource from benefiting, a county must at least allow the activities necessary to develop the resource to a point at which it can be effectively utilized. In the case at bar, the District Court found that processing occurs at the site of gravel extraction because the cost of transporting the material elsewhere for processing would render the mining economically infeasible. The District Court also found that gravel processing on site includes washing, crushing, screening, and concrete and asphalt batching and that these activities are part of the recovery of gravel resources. Missoula County argues that if gravel mining industry practices are relevant to this case, American Asphalt did not produce sufficient evidence to show that industry practices include the full range of processing on site. We will not reverse a District Court's findings of fact unless the record as a whole lacks substantial, credible Wallace v. Wallace St.Rep. 430, 433. evidence to (Mont. 1983), support 661 P.2d the findings. 455, 457, 40 We hold that the record supports the District Court's findings noted above and that the District Court properly applied the statutes involved. Missoula County has urged this Court to construe the meaning of these statutes in a broader context applicable to a l l mineral, agricultural, and t i m b e r r e s o u r c e s . The r e c o r d b e f o r e u s concerns g r a v e l mining i n a p a r t i c u l a r geographic 1o c a t i o n . decline We interpretation on such to a announce narrow a record broad, and sweeping restrict the holding o f t h i s opinion accordingly. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment i s 4. W e concur: - /
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.
