Title: Miller's Pond Co. LLC v. Rocque

State: connecticut

Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court

Document:

******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
MILLER’S POND COMPANY, LLC v. ARTHUR
J. ROCQUE, COMMISSIONER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(SC 16834)
Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.
Argued April 24—officially released June 3, 2003
Richard F. Webb, assistant attorney general, with
whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney
general, and Kimberly P. Massicotte, assistant attorney
general, for the appellant (defendant).
Richard S. Cody, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Arthur J. Rocque, the
commissioner of environmental protection, appeals1
from the judgment of the Appellate Court concluding
that General Statutes § 22a-3712 affords no discretion
to the defendant to decide whether to conduct a hearing
regarding the sufficiency of the application by the plain-
tiff, Miller’s Pond Company, LLC, for a permit to divert
water and to remove gravel under the Connecticut
Water Diversion Policy Act, General Statutes § 22a-3653
et seq. Miller’s Pond Co., LLC v. Rocque, 71 Conn. App.
395, 406, 802 A.2d 184 (2002). We affirm the judgment
of the Appellate Court.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-369,4 the plaintiff
applied to the defendant for a permit to divert water
and remove gravel from a man-made lake known as
Miller’s Pond in Waterford. After reviewing the plain-
tiff’s application, the defendant issued a ‘‘rejection
notice,’’ informing the plaintiff that its application was
insufficient because it failed to include a potential user
of the diverted water as a coapplicant pursuant to the
requirements under the regulations of the department of
environmental protection (department). The defendant
also notified the plaintiff that the rejection notice did
not bar the plaintiff from submitting a corrected appli-
cation.
Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed the decision of the
defendant to the trial court, claiming that it was entitled
to a hearing to determine whether its application was
incomplete. The trial court dismissed the appeal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the trial
court reasoned that § 22a-371 does not require that the
defendant conduct a hearing to determine whether an
application is complete and, accordingly, the defen-
dant’s action did not constitute a final decision in a
contested case, as defined by General Statutes § 4-166,5
pursuant to the appeal process set forth by General
Statutes § 4-1836 of the Uniform Administrative Proce-
dure Act (UAPA). On appeal, the Appellate Court dis-
agreed, concluding that the defendant’s notice of
rejection was indeed a final decision in a contested
case and that under the statutory scheme prescribed
in § 22a-371, a hearing was required. Miller’s Pond Co.,
LLC v. Rocque, supra, 71 Conn. App. 407. Accordingly,
the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s judgment.
Id., 410. This appeal followed.
On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that
there has been no final decision in a contested case
within the meaning of the UAPA. Specifically, the defen-
dant claims that: (1) there is no specific statute authoriz-
ing the plaintiff’s appeal from a rejection notice; (2)
there is no legal right, duty or privilege at issue because
none was adjudicated by the defendant; and (3) the
statutory and regulatory framework, including the
department’s rules of practice regarding water diver-
sion applications, do not require a hearing or an oppor-
tunity for a hearing before the defendant issues a
rejection notice due to the lack of a required signature.
‘‘Our examination of the record and briefs and our
consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade
us that the judgment of the [Appellate Court] should
be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the
[Appellate Court’s] concise and well reasoned [majority
opinion]. . . . Because that [majority opinion] fully
addresses all arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt
it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable
law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful
purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained
therein.’’ (Citation omitted.) Davis v. Freedom of Infor-
mation Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55–56, 787 A.2d
530 (2002).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
1 We granted certification limited to the following question: ‘‘Did the Appel-
late Court properly conclude that the actions of the defendant, the commis-
sioner of environmental protection, was a final decision in a contested case
within the meaning of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act?’’ Miller’s
Pond Co., LLC v. Rocque, 261 Conn. 936, 806 A.2d 1064 (2002).
2 General Statutes § 22a-371 provides: ‘‘(a) Within one hundred twenty days
of receipt of an application for a permit, the commissioner shall determine if
there is any additional information that he deems necessary to carry out
the purposes of sections 22a-365 to 22a-378, inclusive. The applicant shall
provide such information to the commissioner upon request or may request
that the application be deemed complete as is.
‘‘(b) If the applicant does not furnish the requested information, the com-
missioner shall publish notice of his tentative determination on the applica-
tion in accordance with section 22a-6h and shall hold or waive a public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (f) of this section.
‘‘(c) If the commissioner finds that an application is complete, he shall
notify the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. The commis-
sioner shall also notify the applicant of the time, date and location of any
public hearing to be held on the application.
‘‘(d) Upon notifying the applicant in accordance with subsection (c) of this
section that the application is complete, the commissioner shall immediately
provide notice of the application and a concise description of the proposed
diversion to the Governor, the Attorney General, the speaker of the House
of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the Secretary
of the Office of Policy and Management, the Commissioners of Public Health
and Economic and Community Development, the chairperson of the Public
Utility Control Authority, chief executive officer and chairmen of the conser-
vation commission and wetlands agency of the municipality or municipalities
in which the proposed diversion will take place or have effect, and to any
person who has requested notice of such activities.
‘‘(e) As used in this section, ‘municipality’ means a city, town or borough
of the state.
‘‘(f) The commissioner shall hold a public hearing before approving or
denying an application, except that, when the commissioner determines
that the proposed diversion (1) is necessary, (2) will not significantly affect
long-range water resource management or the environment, and (3) will
not impair proper management and use of the water resources of the state,
he may waive the requirement for a hearing after publishing notice of his
tentative decision regarding the application and of his intent to waive the
requirement for a hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the
area where the proposed diversion will take place or have effect; provided
the commissioner shall hold a hearing upon receipt, within thirty days after
such notice is published or mailed, of a petition signed by at least twenty-
five persons. If a hearing is to be held, the commissioner, at the applicant’s
expense, shall (A) cause notice of the time, date and location of the com-
mencement of the hearing, a concise description of the proposed diversion,
and the commissioner’s tentative determination regarding the application
to be published at least twice at intervals of not less than two days and
not less than twenty days prior to the commencement of the hearing in a
newspaper having a general circulation in the area where the proposed
diversion will take place or have effect, and (B) provide the same notice
to the officials listed in subsection (d) of this section not less than twenty
days prior to the commencement of the hearing.’’
3 General Statutes § 22a-365 provides: ‘‘Sections 22a-365 to 22a-378, inclu-
sive, shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Connecticut Water Diversion
Policy Act’.’’
4 General Statutes § 22a-369 provides: ‘‘The applicant shall submit an appli-
cation on such form as the commissioner may prescribe and with such
information as the commissioner deems necessary to fulfill the purposes
of sections 22a-365 to 22a-378, inclusive, including but not limited to:
‘‘(1) The need for the diversion;
‘‘(2) The reasons for the diversion and the use of the diverted water;
‘‘(3) A description of the existing water system where the diversion is
proposed;
‘‘(4) The locations of withdrawals and discharges of water the applicant
proposes to divert;
‘‘(5) The quantity, frequency and rate of water the applicant proposes
to divert;
‘‘(6) The length of time for which the diversion permit is sought;
‘‘(7) The effect of the proposed diversion on public water supplies, water
quality, wastewater treatment needs, flood management, water-based recre-
ation, wetland habitats, waste assimilation, agriculture, fish and wildlife and
low flow requirements;
‘‘(8) The alternatives, if any, to the proposed diversion including a study
of cost factors, feasibility and environmental effects of such alternatives;
‘‘(9) Conservation measures instituted by the applicant prior to the applica-
tion and the applicant’s long-range water conservation plan to be imple-
mented or continued after the issuance of a permit pursuant to sections
22a-365 to 22a-378, inclusive. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with
the memorandum of understanding entered into pursuant to section 4-67e
and shall provide for: (A) The identification of and cost effectiveness of
distribution system rehabilitation to correct sources of lost water; (B) mea-
sures which encourage proper maintenance and water conservation; (C)
a public information program to promote water conservation, including
industrial and commercial recycling and reuse and (D) contingency mea-
sures for limiting water use during seasonal or drought shortages;
‘‘(10) In the case of a proposed interbasin transfer the commissioner may
request the applicant to file an environmental impact report on the transfer
which (A) considers the effect of the transfer on present and future water
uses in the proposed donor basin; (B) includes a plan for meeting water
supply needs and demands in the donor basin for a minimum of twenty-
five years; and (C) analyzes the alternative solutions to the water supply
or wastewater problem including comparative cost analysis of the proposed
transfer relative to alternative measures. In making such request, the com-
missioner shall indicate which aspect of such report enumerated in subpara-
graphs (A), (B) and (C) of this subdivision requires the submission of the
environmental impact report with the application.’’
5 General Statutes § 4-166 (2) provides:‘‘ ‘Contested case’ means a proceed-
ing, including but not restricted to rate-making, price fixing and licensing,
in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by
statute to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing or
in which a hearing is in fact held, but does not include proceedings on a
petition for a declaratory ruling under section 4-176 or hearings referred to
in section 4-168 . . . .’’
6 General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘A person who
has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and
who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as
provided in this section. . . .’’