Title: CV Landfill Inc. v. Environmental Board

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-012


 C.V. Landfill, Inc.                          Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              Washington Superior Court

 Environmental Board                          February Term, 1992


 Stephen B. Martin, J.

 John B. Kassel and Martin K. Miller of Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg, Ltd.,
   Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Conrad W. Smith, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      MORSE, J.   Plaintiff C.V. Landfill, Inc. appeals the Washington
 Superior Court's dismissal of its request for a declaratory judgment that
 Act 250 did not apply to its landfill operation.  C.V. challenges the
 court's invocation of discretion to dismiss the complaint.  C.V. claims that
 the court did not have discretion under the declaratory judgment provision
 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 3 V.S.A. { 807, and the
 Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA), 12 V.S.A. {{ 4711-4725, to refuse to reach
 the merits. Alternatively, C.V. claims that if such discretion existed, it
 was abused.  C.V. also appeals the court's dismissal of its request to
 enjoin Act 250 proceedings against it.
      C.V. and its predecessor operated a landfill in East Montpelier since
 the mid-1960's.  The landfill was a pre-existing development under 10 V.S.A.
 ch. 151 (Act 250), because it was in operation before June 1, 1970.  There-
 fore, it was not required to obtain an Act 250 permit, absent a substantial
 change.  10 V.S.A. { 6081(b).
      Under certification by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) aimed at
 reducing potential pollution from its landfill operation, C.V. was required
 to eliminate the flow of surface water and leachate through an existing
 culvert system.  C.V. implemented the ANR requirement by capping off the old
 system, extending an existing ditch, and installing subsurface tanks, a
 pumphouse, and pipes, but made no change in accepting and processing waste.
 In March 1990, the local District Environmental Commission Coordinator
 issued a written advisory opinion indicating that C.V.'s surface water and
 leachate diversion required an Act 250 permit because the project consti-
 tuted a substantial change under Environmental Board Rule 2(G).  The opinion
 also advised that C.V. could appeal to the Environmental Board and that
 failure to do so or to apply for a permit might trigger an Act 250 enforce-
 ment proceeding.  C.V. did neither and instead filed suit against the Board
 in Washington Superior Court.
      In its complaint, C.V. claimed that its efforts to meet ANR require-
 ments did not constitute a substantial change within the meaning of Rule
 2(G) and therefore, as a preexisting landfill, it was exempt from obtaining
 an Act 250 permit.  The trial court dismissed C.V.'s action on the basis of
 the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" because, in its view, the
 Environmental Board was the more appropriate forum to decide the issue.
                                     I.
      Under the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction," courts may refrain from
 exercising jurisdiction when an alternative tribunal with expertise in the
 subject matter is available to decide the dispute.  See generally 4 K.
 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, {{ 22:1 - 22:2 (2d ed. 1983)
 (disposition of the case by administrative agency charged by statute to
 adjudicate disputes in a particular specialty promotes utilization of
 expertise and uniformity of interpretation); see also Smith v. Highway
 Board, 117 Vt. 343, 349,