Case Title: NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL v

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14537

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14537 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL, Petitioner and Appellant, BOARD OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of P.ecord: For Appellant: Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, Great Falls, Montana James A. Patten argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: John L. Peterson argued, Butte, Montana -S&ra Muckelston, Helena, Montana John W. Ross and -Robert Gannon, Butte, Montana W. H. Bellingham, Billings, Montana . , Submitted: September 21, 1979 Decided: D E C - 6 1979 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his appeal i s from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t dismissing a p e t i t i o n f o r judi- c i a l review of a decision of the Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences. On January 20, 1978, t h e Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences ( t h e Department) issued t o a consortium of northwest electric u t i l i t y companies, a permit t o construct two 700 megawatt e l e c t r i c power genera- t i n g s t a t i o n s i n C o l s t r i p , Rosebud County, Montana. Pur- suant t o t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 69-3911, R.C.M. 1947, t h e p e t i t i o n e r herein requested a hearing before the Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences ( t h e Board) on t h e Department's decision t o i s s u e t h e construction permit. The requested hearing w a s held on March 11, and on April 28 t h e Board affirmed t h e Department's decision t o i s s u e t h e permit . On May 30, t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . The respondent Board r e p l i e d by a motion t o dismiss on June 20; because t h e motion w a s n o t supported by b r i e f , it was denied. Subsequently, t h e Board responded by answer on J u l y 20. On J u l y 27, t h e respondent u t i l i t i e s r e p l i e d with a motion t o dismiss o r f o r a change of venue. The Department d i d n o t respond. The b a s i s of respondents' contention of lack of s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n is s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) (a) , R.C.M. 1947, which provides t h a t appeals of decisions pursuant t o t h e Clean A i r Act of Montana be f i l e d i n t h e District Court f o r t h e J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n which t h e a f f e c t e d property i s located. I n the present s u i t , respondents contend t h e a f f e c t e d property i s located i n Cols t r i p , Rosebud County, Montana. Thus, respondent u t i l i t i e s a s s e r t t h e proper c o u r t i n which t o p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i s t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n the County of Rosebud. Further, respondent u t i l i t i e s assert t h a t s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) (a) i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l provision, and, therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t lacks s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . Respondent u t i l i t i e s ' motion was supported by memoran- dum. P e t i t i o n e r responded on August 1 with a memorandum i n opposition t o t h e motion. On August 24, respondent u t i l i - ties requested a hearing on the motion t o dismiss. On September 1, without holding t h e hearing a s re- quested, t h e c o u r t granted t h e motion t o dismiss. The c o u r t held t h a t s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) (a) was a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l provi- sion and, therefore, t h e District Court of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t was t h e only D i s t r i c t Court i n t h e state t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear the s u i t . O n September 18, p e t i t i o n e r moved t h e c o u r t t o vacate i t s September 1 order and t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment, o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o hold a hearing on t h e motion t o dismiss. A hearing on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 18 motion was noticed f o r September 28. O n September 2 1 , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal t o t h i s Court of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court's September 1 order. O n September 28, 1978, a hearing was held on p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o vacate. A t t h a t hearing t h e D i s t r i c t Court a s s e r t e d t h a t because a n o t i c e of appeal t o t h e Supreme Court had been f i l e d , it no longer had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 18 motion t o vacate. P e t i t i o n e r argued t h a t under Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., t h e c o u r t had continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r s motion t o vacate. The c o u r t d i d n o t agree, and t h e hearing w a s concluded. Another n o t i c e of appeal w a s f i l e d by p e t i t i o n e r on October 6, 1978, "from an Order Dismissing Cause signed i n t h e above-entitled cause on September 1, 1978, and a l l o r d e r s and r u l i n g s i n support t h e r e o f , including Order Denying Motion t o Vacate, S e t Aside o r Hold Hearing." A f t e r having sought j u d i c i a l review on May 30, 1978, on respondent Board's d e c i s i o n , p e t i t i o n e r on J u l y 13, 1978, f i l e d before t h e respondent Board of Health an "Amendment t o P e t i t i o n For a Rehearing of Northern P l a i n s Resource Council's Objections t o t h e Permit t o Construct, No. 1187, dated January 20, 1978." That amendment r e c i t e d a new matter which had n o t been considered a t a l l by respondent Board before A p r i l 28, 1978--namely, t h e d e n i a l by t h e United S t a t e s Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency on June 12, 1978, of a preconstruction permit under r e g u l a t i o n s known a s Preven- t i o n of S i g n i f i c a n t Deterioration (40 C.F.R. 52.21 e t seq.) t o c o n s t r u c t C o l s t r i p Units 3 and 4 . That amended p e t i t i o n f o r rehearing was denied and p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d another "Peti- t i o n f o r J u d i c i a l Review" of respondent Board's d e c i s i o n of A p r i l 28, 1978, b u t t h i s time i n t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District of t h e S t a t e of Montana, County of Rosebud. The p e t i t i o n recites i n Paragraph 1 t h e f a c t of t h e A p r i l 28, 1978, permit o r d e r by t h e respondent Board and recites t h a t "on October 21, 1978, t h e Board of Health and Environmental Sciences denied P e t i t i o n e r ' s Amended p e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing. This appeal i s from t h a t decision, pursuant t o s t a t u t e , and taken pursuant t o t h e provisions of t h e S t a t u t e f o r J u d i c i a l Review." Then, except f o r t h e allega- t i o n s of j u r i s d i c t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r recites almost verbatim, paragraph by paragraph and word f o r word, t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e b a s i s of t h e appeal, which a r e i d e n t i c a l t o those alleged i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review f i l e d May 30, 1978, i n t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . The case i n Rosebud County i s presently pending and ready f o r a determination on a number of procedural and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters. It is c l e a r , however, both appeals a r e i d e n t i c a l , except t h a t t h e a l l e - gation f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i n Rosebud County, where p e t i t i o n e r now a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Rosebud County has j u r i s d i c t i o n because such county is t h e s i t u s of t h e affected property--namely, C o l s t r i p Units 3 and 4 e l e c t r i c generating plants. There have been four i s s u e s presented t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Whether t h e District Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and decide p e t i t i o n e r ' s appeal f i l e d under s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA (formerly s e c t i o n 69-3917(3) through ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1947), from a decision of t h e Board of Health and Environmental Sciences dated April 28, 1978, affirming t h e granting of a Clean A i r Act permit t o respondent u t i l i t i e s t o c o n s t r u c t two coal-fired e l e c t r o n i c generating p l a n t s ( C o l s t r i p Units 3 and 4 ) i n Rosebud County, Montana? 2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t properly dismissed t h e p e t i t i o n upon motion of respondent without first holding t h e requested preliminary hearing? 3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly ruled t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of appeal t o t h e Supreme Court of Montana divested t h e D i s t r i c t Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and decide p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o vacate order and s e t a s i d e judgment o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a hearing? 4. Whether t h i s appeal i s moot by reason of p e t i - t i o n e r ' s having f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n t h e County of Rosebud, seeking a d e t e r - mination of the same i s s u e s as those sought t o be reviewed i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e County of Lewis and Clark from which t h e p r e s e n t appeal w a s taken? A r t i c l e V I I , Section 4 ( 2 ) , 1972 Mont. Const., provides, ". . . [ t l h e l e g i s l a t u r e m a y provide f o r d i r e c t review by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of d e c i s i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies." The r i g h t of j u d i c i a l review of d e c i s i o n s of administra- t i v e agencies may be denied o r r e s t r i c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o p a r t i c u l a r c o u r t s : "The r i g h t and power t o review a c t i o n of an ad- m i n i s t r a t i v e agency e x i s t s i n some c o u r t s even i n t h e absence of express provisions of s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies, and some such provisions have been held n o t t o deprive a c o u r t of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n ; b u t , as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w has developed, t h e m a n n e r a n d e x t e n t of judi- -- c i a 1 review of a c t i o n - of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies and t h e c o u r t s having j u r i s d i c t i o n -- u s u a l l y provided & s t a t u t e s governing the p a r t i - c u l a r agency, and o f t e n by general review o r ad- m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure a c t s . . ." 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law S732, p. 632. (Emphasis sup- p l i e d . ) The Montana Board of Health is granted a u t h o r i t y under s e c t i o n 75-2-211, MCA, of t h e Montana Clean A i r Act t o i s s u e preconstruction permits. After f i n a l d e c i s i o n by t h e Board of Health, j u d i c i a l appeal i s permitted by s e c t i o n 75-2- 411 (3) ( a ) , MCA, which provides: "Within 30 days a f t e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r re- hearing i s denied o r , i f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n is aranted, within 30 days a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e rehearing, a p a r t y aggrieved thereby may -- ap- p e a l -- t o t h e d i s f r i c t c o u r t of -- t h e j u d i c i a l d i s - t r i c t -- of t h e state which -- is t h e s i t u s of property a f f e c t e d 9 t h e order." (Emphasis s u p s i e d . ) A s argued by p e t i t i o n e r , the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) provides generally f o r j u d i c i a l re- view. Section 2-4-702, MCA. However, the provisions of subsection 2(a) of the A c t excludes any possible c o n f l i c t a s follows: ". . . Except a s otherwise provided a s t a t u t e , t h e p e t i t i o n shall be f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t h e county where t h e p e t i t i o n e r re- s i d e s o r has h i s p r i n c i p a l place of business o r where t h e agency maintains i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) Arguments t o t h e contrary, it would s e e m t h a t p e t i - t i o n e r has conceded section 75-2-411, MCA, t o be t h e proper s t a t u t e and the Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t the proper forum upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e second appeal f o r review i n Rosebud County. Paragraph 6 of p e t i t i o n e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review f i l e d i n s a i d county pleads i n p a r t : "6. Pursuant t o the provisions of Section 69- 3917 [now s e c t i o n 75-2-411, M C A ] of t h e Clean A i r Act of Montana venue and j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r judi- c i a l review i s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r the county which i s t h e s i t u s of t h e a f f e c t e d property; t h a t t h e a f f e c t e d property, C o l s t r i p Units 3 and 4 , a r e t o be s i t u a t e d i n t h e town of C o l s t r i p , County of Rosebud, S t a t e of Montana." To have complied with t h e Clean A i r Act, s e c t i o n 75-2- 4 1 1 , MCA, t h e present p e t i t i o n on appeal could only have been f i l e d and determined i n Rosebud County of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . O r a l arguments and b r i e f s notwithstanding, it i s d i f - f i c u l t t o understand any l e g a l theory t h a t would support t h e f i l i n g of t h e present appeal before t h e proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court had been concluded. The complaint by p e t i - t i o n e r t h a t t i m e was very s h o r t is n o t w e l l taken i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t a s t a t e agency w a s involved and Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., allows 60 days from September 1, 1978, t o f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal. I n addition, a Rule 59 motion t o alter o r amend t h e judgment timely f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court would have suspended t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e of appeal as t o a l l p a r t i e s . The argument t h a t a f t e r a proper appeal i s taken t h e D i s t r i c t Court may s t i l l r e t a i n j u r i s - d i c t i o n of t h e cause and continue t o hear and r u l e on pend- i n g m a t t e r s i s n o t t h e law i n Montana. There is no need t o burden t h i s opinion with argument, b u t w e merely p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s Court has been c o n s i s t e n t i n i t s r u l i n g s t h a t upon a proper appeal being taken, j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e cause passes from t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o t h e Supreme Court, sub- j e c t , however, t o t h e r i g h t of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c o r r e c t c l e r i c a l e r r o r s . See McCormick v. McCormick (1975), 168 Mont. 136, 138, 541 P.2d 765, and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . The remaining m a t t e r t o consider concerns t h e a f f e c t of t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s - t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, seeking a review of i s s u e s i d e n t i c a l t o those sought t o be reviewed i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , from which t h e appeal before t h i s Court was taken. P e t i t i o n e r has made c l e a r t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e r e l i e f requested i s a r e v e r s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t Court's d e c i s i o n s o as t o permit venue t o be d i r e c t e d by t h i s Court t o t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District i n Rosebud County. P e t i t i o n e r does n o t contend t h a t it i s e n t i t l e d t o a review on t h e m e r i t s i n t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Consequently, p e t i t i o n e r has previously received a l l t h e r e l i e f it now r e q u e s t s from t h i s Court, which h a s rendered t h e q u e s t i o n s before t h i s Court moot, and w e w i l l n o t pass on moot questions. See Adkins v. C i t y of Livingston (1948), 121 Mont. 528, 532, 194 P.2d 238. For t h e reasons enumerated, p e a l i s dismissed. / / " ~ u s t i c e W e concur: + . I 4 Honorable John M. McCarvel, D i s - t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell - / , . Honorable Joseph B. Gary, D i s t r i c t ~ u d ~ e , s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy