Title: Agency of Natural Resources v. Riendeau

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 89-570


 State of Vermont Agency of                   Supreme Court
 Natural Resources
                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windsor Superior Court

 Gerard, Richard, Paul and                    September Term, 1991
 Gaston Riendeau


 Ellen H. Maloney, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Mark J. DiStefano, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 Melvin D. Fink of Fink & Birmingham, Ludlow, and George E. Brooks,
   Montpelier, for defendants-appellants


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Martin, Super. J.,
           Specially Assigned


      DOOLEY, J.   The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources brought this
 action against Gaston Riendeau and his sons Gerard, Richard and Paul,
 alleging that defendants had discharged "waste, substance or material" into
 East Branch Brook in violation of 10 V.S.A. { 1259(a).  The alleged dis-
 charges occurred in connection with a logging operation defendants conducted
 on land they owned in the towns of Ludlow, Mount Holly and Weston.  Finding
 that defendants had violated 10 V.S.A. { 1259(a), the trial court, under 10
 V.S.A. { 1274(a), issued an injunction and ordered defendants to pay a
 $10,000 civil penalty and punitive damages of $5,000.  Defendants appeal the
 monetary elements of the remedy.  We affirm the civil penalty and reverse
 the punitive damages.
      Defendants began logging on the site in question in June 1987.  In
 August and November of 1987, an Agency investigator received complaints
 about mud and silt in East Branch Brook and found, on investigation, that
 the material was entering the brook because of defendants' logging
 operations.  The Agency brought this action on November 6, 1987, seeking
 first a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  On that
 date, the court issued a consent order prohibiting any discharge of mud,
 silt, wastewater, petroleum products and brush into East Branch Brook.
      After further proceedings, including an Agency motion for contempt, the
 matter came to trial in June and August of 1989.  In findings issued in
 October 1989, the trial court found that on at least five occasions defend-
 ants caused substances to be "deposited or emitted" into East Branch Brook
 as a result of their logging operations.  The substances involved were mud
 and silt, tree butts, tree stumps, and slash (branches, bark or pieces of
 wood).  The court found that defendants did not have a discharge permit.
      The court also found that defendants had violated various Acceptable
 Management Practices (AMPs) as defined in a rule issued by the Vermont
 Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation in June 1987, entitled
 Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging
 Jobs in Vermont.  The AMPs define remedial measures needed to protect waters
 from the effects of logging operations.  The introduction states:
           The AMPs have the force of law and violations can be
         costly, so it is important to understand the conditions
         under which they can be enforced.  These conditions are
         as follows:
           1.  A violation occurs only if there is a discharge.
         If no discharge occurs, the logger or landowner cannot
         be fined or prosecuted for not having the AMP's in
         place.
           2.  If there is a discharge and the AMP's are properly
         in place, there is no violation.
           3.  If there is a discharge and the AMP's have not
         been followed, there is a violation.

 The court found that defendants violated AMPs prohibiting dragging logs
 across the stream, use of hay bale erosion controls, use of culverts and
 installation of water bars and drainage devices.  It also found some
 mitigating factors and that defendants spent approximately $30,000 to
 implement improvement practices.
      Based on its findings, the court concluded that defendants had, without
 a permit, discharged "waste, substance or material" into state waters on at
 least five occasions in violation of 10 V.S.A. { 1259(a).  The court
 declined to hold defendant in contempt for violating the preliminary
 injunction.  It did, however, impose civil penalties of $2,000 for each of
 the discharge violations (totaling $10,000), and punitive damages against
 defendants for having "knowingly and willfully discharged substances into
 waters of the state."
      On appeal, defendants argue:  (1) the court had no authority to order
 payment of civil penalties under 10 V.S.A. { 1274(a) because the Agency
 failed to adopt rules determining which violations of law are significant;
 (2) civil penalties could not be imposed without a finding of harm to the
 environment; (3) civil penalties could not be ordered based on a violation
 of the AMPs; and (4) punitive damages could not be awarded without a finding
 of malice.  We consider the issues in order.
      Defendants' first argument is based on 10 V.S.A. { 1274(b), a sub-
 section added in 1986, which states:
         (b) The Secretary [of Natural Resources], by rule, shall
         define those violations which are significant, based
         upon the magnitude, duration, consequences and causes of
         the violation.  When a significant violation occurs,
         the secretary may initiate proceedings to compel com-
         pliance by and seek penalties from the violator.  A
         court, upon finding that such a violation has occurred,
         shall order compliance and retain jurisdiction to assure
         that compliance schedules are met.  The court also shall
         impose penalties.  Action under this section shall not
         restrict the secretary's authority to proceed under
         section 1267 of this title.

 The statute to which the subsection was added, now { 1274(a), authorizes
 judicial remedies, including the levying of civil penalties, for discharges
 of waste in violation of the chapter.  It is undisputed that the Secretary
 has never followed the command of { 1274(b) and promulgated rules defining
 significant violations.  Defendants argue that this failure has stripped the
 court of the authority to impose civil penalties.  The Legislature, they
 argue, by enacting { 1274(b), intended that civil penalties be imposed only
 for significant violations and that the Secretary's failure to define such
 violations makes it impossible to discern the legislative intent.
      For three main reasons, we disagree with defendants' construction of
 the applicable statutes.  First, our basic rules of statutory construction
 suggest that courts retain the power to impose civil penalties under {
 1274(a) despite the enactment of { 1274(b).  In construing a statute we must
 be guided by the plain meaning of the text.  See In re Graziani, 155 Vt.
 ___, ___, 591 A.2d 91, 94 (1991).  Section 1274(a)(6), under which the
 court proceeded, grants specific authority to "exercise all the plenary
 powers available to it in addition to the power to: . . . (6) Levy civil
 penalties . . . ."  This grant of power was not amended when the
 Legislature added { 1274(b).  It is inconsistent with the text to suggest
 that the addition of { 1274(b) impliedly revoked the powers granted by {
 1274(a).
      When provisions of statutes are in apparent conflict, we favor the
 interpretation that harmonizes the conflicting provisions.  Weissenstein v.
 Burlington Bd. of School Comm'rs, 149 Vt. 288, 292,