Title: Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgt. Dist.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., Slip 
Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6765.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-6765 
NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,  
APPELLANT, v. STARK-TUSCARAWAS-WAYNE JOINT SOLID WASTE 
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne 
Joint Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6765.] 
Solid-waste-management district — Local rules — Civil procedure — The 
director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is not a necessary 
party who must be joined in a suit challenging the validity of local rules 
adopted by a solid-waste-management district. 
(No. 2009-0211 — Submitted November 18, 2009 — Decided 
December 30, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2008CA00011, 
2008-Ohio-6585. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is not a necessary 
party who must be joined in a suit challenging the validity of local rules 
adopted by a solid-waste-management district. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} The National Solid Wastes Management Association (“NSWMA”) 
appeals from a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reversed and 
remanded a declaratory judgment entered by the Stark County Court of Common 
Pleas in favor of the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management 
District (“STW District”) for failure to join a necessary party: the director of the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 
{¶ 2} The issues presented in this case concern whether the director of 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”) is a necessary party to a 
declaratory-judgment action challenging local rules adopted by a solid-waste-
management district, and whether such rules, adopted in this case pursuant to a 
memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between the director of OEPA and the 
district, are valid and enforceable. 
{¶ 3} After review, we have concluded that because the director of the 
OEPA has no authority to enforce local-waste-management rules adopted by the 
STW District, he is not a necessary party who must be joined in a declaratory-
judgment action seeking to challenge those rules.  And, because the appellate 
court, in reliance on its view regarding the director’s status as a party, has not 
addressed whether the rules are valid and enforceable, we remand that matter for 
the court’s consideration in the first instance. 
Facts and Procedural History 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
{¶ 4} The STW District is a joint solid-waste-management district for 
Stark, Tuscarawas, and Wayne counties with responsibility for preparing, 
obtaining OEPA approval of, and implementing a solid-waste-management plan 
for the disposal of solid wastes generated within the district’s boundaries.  In 
1993, the director of the OEPA approved the STW District’s original plan.  In 
1999, when the district filed an amended waste-management plan, the director 
disapproved it and in 2004 notified the district of his intention to prepare an 
amended plan on its behalf.  The district subsequently entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding with the director in which it was agreed that the 
district could adopt local rules prior to November 30, 2006, the date by which an 
amended plan would be issued by the director. 
{¶ 5} In November 2006, the district adopted four local rules, including a 
recycling rule specifying that after January 1, 2008, landfills within the district 
would no longer be permitted to accept waste from outside the district unless the 
originating district met or exceeded the STW District’s recycling standards. 
{¶ 6} On December 13, 2006, acting on behalf of its member landfill 
operators, the NSWMA filed a complaint against the STW District in the Stark 
County Court of Common Pleas seeking a declaration that the district’s new rules 
exceeded statutory authority and were void and unenforceable.  The district 
counterclaimed for a declaration that its recycling rule is valid. 
{¶ 7} On December 22, 2006, the director issued an amended plan 
prepared by the OEPA and ordered the district to implement it. 
{¶ 8} In December 2007, the trial court found that the MOU was a valid, 
enforceable agreement between the parties, and that it provided for the local rules 
to survive the amended plan issued by the director.  The court further ruled that 
the recycling rule is valid, but held that it would be impossible for the affected 
landfills to implement the recycling rule by January 1, 2008; as a result, it ordered 
a delay in the effective date of that rule.  The court further ruled in favor of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
STW District with respect to the validity of the other three rules, finding that no 
justiciable controversy existed because the NSWMA failed to demonstrate that its 
members would not be able to comply with the rules. 
{¶ 9} The NSWMA appealed the trial court’s decision to the Fifth 
District Court of Appeals, which sua sponte raised the question of whether the 
director of the OEPA is a necessary party to this case.  The appellate court held 
that the director is a necessary party to any lawsuit challenging the STW District’s 
local rules because he has the power to enforce them.  The court ruled that the 
trial court acted without jurisdiction in hearing the case and remanded the matter 
for dismissal. 
{¶ 10} The NSWMA appealed to this court, and we agreed to hear two 
propositions of law: first, whether the director is a necessary party to the action 
and second, whether the STW District’s local rules are valid and enforceable.  
Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgt. 
Dist., 121 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2009-Ohio-2045, 905 N.E.2d 653. 
{¶ 11} Notably, both the NSWMA and the STW District agree that the 
director is not a necessary party to the NSWMA’s declaratory-judgment action 
because he has no authority to enforce the district’s local rules and therefore has 
no interest in their validity.  Thus, his absence did not deprive the trial court of 
jurisdiction to render its judgment. 
{¶ 12} The parties disagree, however, whether the STW District’s rules 
are valid and enforceable.  The NSWMA argues that the STW District’s authority 
to adopt and enforce its local rules ended on December 22, 2006, when the 
director issued the amended plan prepared by the OEPA for the district.  It further 
contends that the recycling rule exceeds statutory authority because a waste-
management district may exclude solid waste generated in other districts when 
necessary to meet local disposal capacity and disposal needs, but not to enforce 
local recycling standards. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 13} The STW District argues that it is not barred, either by statute or 
by the amended plan issued by the director, from enforcing its preexisting local 
rules.  It further contends that the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s 
finding that the MOU contemplated the rules would survive the amended plan 
issued by the director because that finding is supported by competent credible 
evidence. 
{¶ 14} Thus, the issues before this court concern whether the director is a 
necessary party to the NSWMA’s action and whether the local rules adopted by 
the STW District pursuant to the MOU are valid and enforceable. 
Solid-Waste-Disposal Statutory Framework 
{¶ 15} Effective June 24, 1988, the General Assembly enacted 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 592, 142 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4418, thereafter codified in, inter 
alia, R.C. Chapters 343 and 3734, which established statewide solid- and 
hazardous-waste-management policies and programs, vested the director of the 
OEPA with wide-ranging authority to adopt rules governing solid-waste facilities, 
and mandated each county to create a county solid-waste-management district or 
to join with other counties in creating a joint-solid-waste management district. 
{¶ 16} R.C. 3734.54(A) requires each district to prepare and implement a 
solid-waste-management plan that must be submitted to and approved by the 
director.  Periodically, districts must review and revise their initial plans and 
submit an amended plan to the director for approval; if a district fails to submit, or 
fails to secure approval of an amended plan, the director is required by statute to 
prepare and issue an amended plan for the district.  See R.C. 3734.56(A) and 
3734.55(D). 
OEPA Director as a Necessary Party 
{¶ 17} The absence of a necessary party to a lawsuit is a jurisdictional 
defect that precludes the court from rendering a declaratory judgment.  See 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Zanesville v. Zanesville Canal & Mfg. Co. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 203, 209, 50 O.O 
254, 111 N.E.2d 922. 
{¶ 18} In Cincinnati v. Whitman (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 58, 73 O.O.2d 
283, 337 N.E.2d 773, we examined whether a litigant needed to join the director 
of the OEPA as a party to a suit concerning the condition of Cincinnati’s drinking 
water.  We held that “when declaratory relief is sought which involves the validity 
or construction of a statute and affects the powers and duties of public officers, 
such officers should be made parties to the action or proceeding in which the 
relief is sought.”  Id. at 61.  In that case, because the director of the OEPA had the 
exclusive duty to investigate and enforce compliance with statutory water quality 
standards, the failure to join the director deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. 
{¶ 19} In the present case, the appellate court held that the OEPA director 
is a necessary party to the NSWMA’s declaratory-judgment action challenging 
the STW District’s local rules because R.C. 3734.02 vests him with the power to 
enforce those rules.  2008-Ohio-6585, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 20} R.C. 3734.02 provides:  
{¶ 21} “(A) The director of environmental protection, in accordance with 
Chapter 119 of the Revised Code, shall adopt and may amend, suspend, or rescind 
rules having uniform application throughout the state governing solid waste 
facilities * * *. 
{¶ 22} “* * *  
{¶ 23} “(B) The director shall prescribe and furnish the forms necessary to 
administer and enforce this chapter.  The director may cooperate with and enter 
into agreements with other state, local, or federal agencies to carry out the 
purposes of this chapter.  The director may exercise all incidental powers 
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.” 
{¶ 24} This statute vests the director with the power to enforce rules 
having uniform application throughout the state, making him a necessary party to 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
an action challenging such rules.  However, the rules at issue in this case are the 
STW District’s local rules – rules adopted by the STW District rather than by the 
director and thus, by definition, not uniformly applicable throughout the state.  
The relevant question, therefore, is whether the director has the power to enforce 
local rules adopted by a solid-waste-management district. 
{¶ 25} R.C. 343.01(G) provides that the power to enforce local rules rests 
with the board of county commissioners of a county district or board of directors 
of a joint district: “[T]he board * * * may adopt, publish, and enforce rules * * * 
(1) [p]rohibiting or limiting the receipt of solid wastes generated outside the 
district * * * at facilities located within the solid waste management district.”  
This subsection specifies that the director may modify a local rule if six 
conditions set forth in divisions (G)(1)(a) through (f) apply, but it does not grant 
him the express power to enforce a local rule. 
{¶ 26} Thus, neither R.C. 3734.02 nor R.C. 343.01(G) grants the director 
of the OEPA the power to enforce the STW District’s local rules; accordingly, the 
director is not a necessary party to an action challenging the enforcement of those 
rules.  Therefore, the director’s absence from the action does not deprive the trial 
court of jurisdiction to render a decision.  Furthermore, we note that because the 
appellate court raised the issue of whether the director was a necessary party sua 
sponte and remanded this case for dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction, it has 
not yet considered the assignments of error presented by the parties regarding the 
validity and enforcement of the STW District rules.  Accordingly, we remand this 
matter for further consideration. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 27} Based on the foregoing, we agree with the parties and conclude 
that the director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is not a necessary 
party who must be joined in a suit challenging the validity of local rules adopted 
by a solid-waste-management district.  Accordingly, the decision of the appellate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
court is reversed and the matter is remanded for consideration of the pending 
assignments of error. 
{¶ 28} We are mindful of the importance of the substantive issues 
presented by this case to citizens of this state and recognize a special need for 
swift resolution.  Because the parties have already briefed the matter regarding 
validity of the STW District rules, we assume that this matter will be advanced on 
the appellate docket for expedited consideration. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Frost Brown Todd L.L.C., Terrence M. Fay, Christopher S. Habel, and 
Douglas R. Dennis, for appellant. 
 
Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, L.P.A., Thomas W. Connors, and 
Kristen R. Zemis, for appellee. 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., and David E. Northrop, urging 
reversal for amici curiae Coshocton-Fairfield-Licking-Perry Solid Waste 
Management District and Southeastern Ohio Joint Solid Waste Management 
District. 
 
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., and Terrence S. Finn, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Summit/Akron Solid Waste Management Authority. 
Linda S. Woggon, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of 
Commerce. 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae 
Cuyahoga County Solid Waste Management District. 
______________________