Case Title: Lake Bomoseen Assn. v. Vermont Water Resources Board

Citation: 178 Vt. 375, 2005 VT 79, 886 A.2d 355

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lake Bomoseen Assn. v. Vermont Water Resources Board (2004-220); 178 Vt. 375;
886 A.2d 355

2005 VT  79

[Filed 15-Jul-2005]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2005 VT  79

                                No. 2004-220

  Lake Bomoseen Association	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Rutland Superior Court

  Vermont Water Resources Board	                 October Term, 2004

  Richard W. Norton, J.

  Jon T. Anderson of Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and S. Mark Sciarrotta, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

  Kelly D.H. Lowry of Johnson, Smith, Hibbard & Wildman, Spartanburg, South
    Carolina, for  Intervenor-Appellees Vermont Natural Resources Council and
    Rutland County Audubon.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Lake Bomoseen Association appeals from a
  superior court decision dismissing its complaint challenging a wetlands
  reclassification determination by the Vermont Water Resources Board.  The
  trial court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because: (1) the statutes
  governing wetlands reclassifications provide no express right to judicial
  review, and (2) the reclassification was a rulemaking rather than an
  adjudicative proceeding and therefore not reviewable by a traditional writ
  of certiorari.  We affirm.   

       ¶  2.  The legal and factual background to this appeal may be
  summarized as follows. Among its other statutory duties, the Water
  Resources Board (WRB) is required to "[a]dopt rules for the identification
  of wetlands which are so significant that they merit protection" based on
  certain statutorily defined functions, including contribution to the
  "quality of surface and groundwater through chemical action," control "the
  effects of erosion and runoff, filtering silt and organic matter," and use
  as habitat for fish, migratory birds, and wildlife. 10 V.S.A. § 905(7).
  (FN1)  The WRB is also charged with the duty to "[a]ct on petitions" to
  designate specific wetlands as significant, and to "[a]dopt rules
  protecting wetlands which have been determined . . . to be significant." 
  Id. § 905(8), (9).  Pursuant to this authority, the WRB has promulgated
  Wetland Rules creating three categories of wetlands, denominated Class One,
  Class Two, and Class Three.  Vermont Wetland Rules § 4.1, 6 Code of Vermont
  Rules 12 004 056-10 (2002) [hereinafter VWR].
   
       ¶  3.  Under the Rules, all wetlands shown on the National Wetlands
  Inventory (NWI) Maps published by the United States Fish and Wildlife
  Service are presumptively significant and designated as Class Two.  Id. §
  4.2(b); see also Sec'y, Agency of Natural Res. v. Irish, 169 Vt. 407,
  413-14,