IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lincoln Investors, L.P., : Lincoln Court, Inc., :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 2646 C.D. 2015 : Argued: October 20, 2016 Frank. A. King, Jr. and Glenn A. : King, Co

- Executors of the Estate of : Frank King; Lizelton, Inc.; Sam and : Sal Associates; William J. Mangan; : Liberty Square Condominium : Association of Chester County; RFP : Properties, Inc.; 271, L.P.; East : Whiteland Township; County of : Chester, PA; Pennsylvania : Department of Environmental : Protection; Pennsylvania Department : of Tra nsportation; F.W. Houder, Inc.; : Peter Krasas, Jr. and Associates, : Inc. ; Edward A. Walsh and : Associates, Inc., Pancoast Clifford, : Inc.; Pickering Valley Contractors, : Inc.; and Lyons and Hohl :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: December 22, 2016

This Court has granted Lincoln Investors, L.P. and Lincoln Court, Inc. (collectively “Lincoln”) permission to appeal an interlocutory order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court), which granted partial summary2

judgment in favor of fif

teen defendants 1 (collectively “Defendants”) as to claims
brought under the Storm Water Management Act (Act). 2 The trial court held that

Defendants , consisting of surrounding property owners as well as state and local
government entities, could not be hel d liable under Section 13 of the Act for
flooding incidents that occurred before 2011, when Chester County adopted a
watershed storm water plan . Lincoln argues that the trial court erred in its
construction of the enforcement provisions of the Act , and th is Court allowed

Lincoln’s appeal to consider this question

. Background

Lincoln owns and operates a shopping center located on a 23

- acre parcel in East Whiteland Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania that it has

owned since 1987 . The shopping center fi rst experienced flooding with Hurricane
Floyd in 1999. It experienced flooding again in 2003. From 2003 through 2011,
flooding at the shopping center was sporadic

. In 2011, Lincoln’s shopping center
experienced two flooding incidents . Lincoln contends that over time, the instances
of flooding have increased in frequency and intensity.

To address this flooding, Lincoln engaged an engineer to determine

the source of the problem a nd offer a solution. In January 2012, the engineer

advised Lincoln that t he flooding was caused by the inadequate underground storm

1 The defendants are: Frank A. King, Jr. a nd Glenn A. King, Co

- Executors o f the Estate of Frank King; Lizelton, Inc.; Sam and Sal Associates; William J. Mangan; Liberty Square Condominium Association of Chester County; RFP Properties, Inc.; 271 L.P.; East W hiteland Township; County of Chester, P A ; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; F.W. Houder, Inc.; Peter Krasas, Jr. and Associates, Inc.; Edward A. Walsh and Associates, Inc.; Pancoast Clifford, In c.; Pickering Valley Contractors, Inc.; and Lyons and Hohl.

2 Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 864, as amended , 32 P.S. §§680.1

- 680.17.3

water management systems on surrounding prop erties. Lincoln filed suit in June

2012

. Lincoln filed an action against all Defendants alleging, inter alia

, violations of Section 13 of the Act, for which it sought damages under Section
15(c) of the Act. 32 P.S. § §680.13, 680.15(c)

. 3 The trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendan ts on Lincoln’s Section 13 claim that related to pre

2011 flooding incidents

. The trial court construed S ection 13 to establish a

mechanism for ensuring compliance with a county’s adoption of a “watershed storm water plan” under Section 4 of the Act, 32 P.S. §680.4. Accordingly, unless
and until the county adopts a watershed storm water plan

, a landowner can not

violate Section 13. Because Chester County adopted a watershed storm water plan

in February 2011, the trial court held that Lincoln could pursue a Section 13
enforcement action as of February 2011. 4

Lincoln petitioned for amendment of the trial cour t’s order to certify it
for interlocutory appeal 5 of the question of whether a watershed storm water plan is

3 Additionally, Lincoln’ s complaint asserted common law claims for negligence, trespass, and nuisance against all Defendants. Reproduced Record at 181a

- 183a, 187a

- 188a.

4 The trial court’s order granted partial summary judgment to Defenda nt Sam and Sal Associates, Inc. for claims under Section 1 3 of the Act. Trial Court Order, 9/28/15, ¶2. The partial summary judgment dismissed the Section 1 3 claims based upon conduct that occurred prior to February, 2011, when the Chester County storm water management plan was adopted. However, the trial court denied s ummary judgment to Sam and Sal Associates, Inc. w ith respect to the Section 13 claims based on conduct occurring after February, 2011. Summary judgment was entered in favor of all other Defendants for Section 13 claims. Sam and Sal Associates, Inc. is the only defendant that was alleged to have engage d in land development after February, 2011.

5 Section 702(b) of the Judicial Code authorizes jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals by permission. It states: When a court or other government unit, in making an interlocutory order in a matter in which its final order would be within the jurisdiction of an appellate court, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of (Footnote continued on the next page . . .)4

required before an action may be brought under Section 13 of the Act. The trial
court granted the petition, and on January 8, 2016 , this Court granted Lincoln’s
petition for permission to appeal the trial court’s judgment on the Section 13

claim

. 6 The matter is now ready for disposition. 7

Analysis

T he Storm Water Management Act was enacted in 1978 to manage

the effec ts of storm water run off

. Specifically, the General Assembly expressly

identified the purpose s of the Act as follows :

(1) Encourage planning and management of storm water runoff in each watershed which is consistent with sound water and land use practices.

(2) Authorize a comprehen sive program of storm water management designated to preserve and restore the flood carrying capacity of Commonwealth streams; to preserve to the maximum extent practicable natural storm water runoff regimes and natural course, current and cross

-
(continued . . .) law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the o rder may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter, it shall so state in such order. The appellate court may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such interlocutory order. 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b). See also Pa. R.A.P. 1311 (a) (stating “[a]n appeal may be taken by permission under 4 2 Pa. C.S. §702(b) (interlocutory appeals by permission) from any interlocutory order of a lower court or other governmental unit.”)

. 6 This Court denied Lincoln’s petition for permission to appeal to the extent it sought review of the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.

7 Where the question is one of statutory construction this Court’s review is plenary as it poses a pure issue of law. Frank Bryan, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bryan, Dec.d.)

, 921 A.2d 546, 549 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). The scope of review from the granting of a motion of summary judgment is plenary; the standard of review is de novo, i.e., whether the trial court committed an error of law. City of Philadelphia v. Carpino , 915 A.2d 169, 171 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).5 section of water of the Commonwealth; and to protect and conserve ground waters and ground

- water recharge areas.

(3) Encourage local administration and management of storm
water c onsistent with the Commonwealth’ s duty as trustee of n atural resources and the people’ s constitutional right to the preservation of natural, economic, scenic, aesthetic, recreational and historic values of the environment.

Section 3 of the Act, 32 P.S. §680.3.

To advance the statutory goal of managing storm water runoff,

Section 5 of the A ct requires each county to prepare and adopt a watershed storm
water plan for each existing watershed

. 8 32 P.S. §680.5. Section 5 gave counties
two years following the promulgation of certain guidelines by the Department of

Environmental Protection (Department) to adopt these plans . On May 14, 1985,

t he Department promulgated its Storm Water Management Guidelines
(Guidelines) , which triggered the counties’ responsibility to adopt a watershed
storm water plan.

In spite of the Section 5 timetable

, Chester County did not adopt a watershed storm water plan for the Valley Creek Watershed, where Lincoln’s
shopping center is located , until February of 2011. Lincoln argues that liability can
be imp osed under the Act despite the C ounty’s delay in adopting a watershed
storm water plan. Defendants respond that the existence of a county

- adopted
watershed storm water plan is a prerequisite for liability under Section 13

.

Section 15 of the Act creates civil remedies to enforce the provisions

of the Act. It states as follows:

8 A “ [ w ] atershed storm water plan” is defined as “[a] plan for storm water management adopted by a county in accordance with section 5.” Section 4 of the Act, 32 P.S. §680.4.6 Civil remedies.

(a) Any activity conducted in violation of the provisions of this

act or of any watershed storm water plan, regulations or ordinances adopted hereunder , is hereby declared a public nuisance.

(b) Suits to restrain, preven t or abate violation of this act or of any watershed storm water plan, regulations or ordinances adopted hereunder , may be instituted in equity or at law by the department, any affected county or municipality, or any aggrieved person . Except in cases of em ergency where, in the opinion of the court, the circumstances of the case require immediate abatement of the unlawful conduct, the court may, in its decree, fix a reasonable time during which the person responsible for the unlawful conduct shall correct or abate the same. The expense of such proceedings shall be recoverable from the violator in such manner as may now or hereafter be provided by law.

(c) Any person injured by conduct which violates the provisions of section 13 may, in addition to any other remedy provided under this act, recover damages caused by such violation from the landowner or other responsible person.

32 P.S. §680.15 (a)

- (c) (emphasis added)

. In sum, Section 15 declares an activity
that violates the Act or a regulation or ordinance a dopted thereunder a public

nuisance , which may be enjoined by an aggrieved party . 32 P.S. §680.15 (a), (b).

W here the activity violates Section 13 of the Act, the “person injured” by this
conduct may seek damages. 32 P.S. §680.15(c).

Lincoln argues that Section 15 imposes civil liability for “any activity

conducted in violation of” any one of the following : (1) the provisions of the Act,
(2) any watershed storm water plan, (3) regulations adopted under the Act, or (4)
ordinances adopt ed under the Act. It a rgues that the use of the disjunctive word

“or” means that remedies pursuant to Section 15 of the A ct are not limited to7

conduct that violates the county’s watershed storm water plan

. Lincoln maintains
that neither injunctive relief under subsection (b) nor damages under subsection (c)
of Section 15 require the existence of a county watershed storm water plan as a prerequisite to liability.

We agree that a county’s adoption of a watershed storm water plan is
not a prerequisite for p ursuing the remedies authorized by subsection (b) of Section

15 . 32 P.S. §680.15(b). I n Merlino v. Delaware County , 711 A.2d 1100 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1998)

, aggrieved landowners filed a mandamus action to compel
Delaware County to prepare and adopt a watershed storm water pla n for the Darby

Creek Watershed . The county argued that the aggrieved landowners lacked
standing. In rejecting the county’s argument, this Court explained that

[s]ection 15 provides that civil remedies are available not only for violation s of any watershed plan, or of any regulation or ordinance adopted with respect to the plan, but also of any violation of the Act itself . The Act principally addressed the duties of the counties of the Commonwealth to adopt, submit, and implement storm wa ter management plans.

Id. at 1105 (emphasis added) . Accordingly, we held that under subsection (b) “ an aggrieved private citizen may bring an action to address violations of the Act under

Section 15.” Id. In short, subsection (b) authorizes an aggrieved person to pursue equitable

- type remedies for any violation of the Act, a regulation or an ordinance as well as a violation of a county’s watershed storm water plan.

On the other hand, the remedy authorized by Section 15 (c) requires a
different analysis. It states that

[a]ny person injured by conduct which violates the provisions of section 13 may, in addition to any other remedy provided under this act, recover damages caused by such violation from the landowner or other responsible person.8

32 P.S. §680.15 (c) . The prerequis ite to an action for damages under Section 15(c)

is a violation of Section 13 of the Act. Lincoln argues that a landowner can violate
the provisions of Section 13 even where there is no watershed storm water plan in
place.

Section 13 of the Act states a s follows :

Duty of persons engage d in the development of land.
Any landowner and any person engaged in the alteration or development of land which may affect storm water runoff characteristics shall implement such measures consistent with the provisions of the applicable watershed storm water plan as are reasonably necessary to prevent injury to health, safety or other property. Such measures shall include such actions as are required:

(1) To assure that the maximum rate of storm water runoff is no greater after development than prior to development activities; or

(2) To manage the quantity, velocity and direction of resulting storm water runoff in a manner which otherwise adequately protects health and property from possible injury.

32 P.S. §680.13 (emphasis added)

. Lincoln offers several arguments in support of

its view that Section 13 addresses more than conduct that violates the terms of an “applicable watershed storm water plan

. ”

First, Lincoln contends that the above

- quoted language does not
require a watershed storm water plan to be in place . R ather, it directs the person engaged in land development to act in a manner consistent with the plan if one is in
place

. Lincoln Brief at 23 (internal quotations omitted).9 Second, Lincoln contends that the trial court’s construction gives no effect to subsections (1) and (2) of Section 13 , which contain specific standards

that a landowner or land developer must satisfy. Lincoln reasons that subsections
(1) and (2) of Section 13 state requirements that must be encompassed by
watershed storm water plans enacted by the county but also create duties that “any
landowner and any person engaged in the

... development of land” must fulfill

. 32
P.S. §680.13. Subsection (1) requires a developer not to incr ease the maximum

rate of storm water runoff ; s ubsection (2) requires the developer to manage storm
water as necessary to protect property. Neither subsection needs a watershed storm
water plan to be capable of implementation

.

Defendants respond that t he f irst sentence in Section 13 requires a

landowner to “ implement such measures consistent with the provisions of the
applicable watershed storm water plan. ” 32 P.S. §680.13 (emphasis added)

. Subsections (1) and (2) describe “[s]uch measures” that must be u ndertaken. Id.

Defendants contend that Lincoln ’s construction requires the addition of “if” to

Section 13 , which cannot be done. In re Upper Chichester Township , 415 A.2d
1250, 1252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (a court may not “ insert words into statutory
provis ions where the legislature has failed to supply them.”). In sum, Defendants

contend that Section 13 requires a landowner to take measures consistent with the
applicable watershed storm water plan, and it cannot implement “such measures ”
consistent with a plan before it comes into existence

.

The object of all statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate
the intention of the General Assembly. 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a). 9 “ When the words of

9 It states: (Footnote continued on the next page . . .)10

a statute are clear and free from all ambiguit y, the letter of it is not to be
disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. ” 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(b).

We agree with Defendants. Section 13 must be read in its entirety.
Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd. , 81 A.3d 816, 822 (Pa. 2013) ( “[i]n
giving effect to the words of the legislature, we should not interpret statutory
words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear.”). The s ubsections of Section 13 simply elaborate on the measures a
developin g landowner must take with respect to a watershed storm water plan : (1)

maintain the current storm water runoff rate and (2) manage the runoff in a manner
which protects health and property. 32 P.S. § 670.13(1), (2).

This construction is consistent wit h this Court’s decision in Bahor v.
City of Pittsburgh , 631 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) , in which Bahor brought a
claim against the City of Pittsburgh, alleging that the City’s development of land
caused flooding and damage to his property. A jury awarded damages to Bahor
pursuant to Section 15(c) of the Act. The C ity filed a post

- verdict motion for
judgment n.o.v. on the grounds that its conduct was not proscribed by the Act. The
trial court granted the motion, holding that the Act applies only to drain age associated with large

- scale developments . T he amount of storm water running

onto Bahor’s land from the City’s development was not of sufficient magnitude to trigger liability under the Act.

(continued . . .)
[t] he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisio ns. 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a).11 This Court reversed the trial co urt’s ruling to the extent it held that the

Act did not apply to the City’s “minor” activity. We explained:

Bahor showed that the City’s alteration of the adjacent property increased the storm water runoff onto his land and caused damage. The alteration violated both Sections 13(1) and 13(2) [of the Act] because it increased the rate of runoff and failed to control the runoff in a manner which protected neighboring property. This evidence, offered with evidence of an applicable storm water management plan , might allow Bahor relief under Section 15.

Bahor , 631 A.2d at 732 (emphasis added). However, we upheld the ju dgment

n.o.v. because Bahor had “failed to introduce evidence of an applicable watershed
storm water plan

. ” Id. at 733 (emphasis added). In the absence of that evidence,

this Court could not determine whether the City had violated Section 13 of the Act.

Id. We held that it was the obligation of the complaining plaintiff “to introduce the
applicable storm water management plan and any alleged violation thereof, under

Section s 13 and 15 of the Act.” Id. (emphasis added).

Lincoln responds that Bahor est ablished that either a county
watershed storm water plan or a municipal storm water management plan can
provide the basis for liability under the Act. In support, it notes that the Bahor
opinion use d two different phrases: “storm water management plan” an d “watershed storm water plan

, ” which, according to Lincoln

, have different
meaning s

. A “ w atershed storm water plan” is defined in Section 4 of the Act as

“ [ a ] plan for storm water management adopted by a county

.... ” 32 P.S. § 680 .4
(emphasis added)

. By contrast, “ s torm water management plan ” is not defined
and, thus, broader in scope and can include a plan adopted by a township or
municipality that is site

- specific. Lincoln Brief at 30. Bahor needed to offer proof12

of a county watershed storm water p lan, as defined under the Act, or a municipal
storm water management plan. Bahor ’s claim failed because he did not offer proof

of either a county “watershed storm water plan

, ” or a township, municipal, or site

specific “storm water management plan

. ”

Def endants acknowledge that the Bahor opinion use s this different
phraseology but contend that this has no particular significance . The opinion in

Bahor does not identify a “watershed storm water plan ” as a county plan and a “storm water management plan” as a municipal, township, or site

- specific plan.
What is more, Defendants note that “watershed storm water plan” is defined in

Section 4 of the Act as “ a plan for storm water management .”

We agree with Defendants that the terms “watershed storm water
pl an” and “storm water management plan” were not chosen for a ny purpose other
than for reasons of style

. In Bahor

, the C ourt was consistent in holding that “ a watershed storm water plan ” w as defined in Section 4 of the Act, 32 P.S. §680.4. 10
We reject Linco ln’s contrary argument

.

Finally, we address Lincoln’s reliance on this Court’s decision in
Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township , 116 A.3d 706
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc) to support its position.

In Glencannon , a homeowners association maintained a neighborhood
pond for the purpose of storm water retention and sedimentation control for the
residential units. A local school district constructed a new sports complex on
township land located north of the associat ion’s pond. As a result of the new

10 Bahor concludes by stating “we uphold Judgment N.O.V. on the grounds that Bahor failed to introduce evidence of an applicable watershed storm water plan.” Bahor , 631 A.2d at 733. Thus, in its ultimate conclusion, the C ourt use d the statutory defined term “watershed storm water plan.” 32 P.S. §680.4.13

construction, whenever it rained, water, sediment, and other debris flowed from the
sports complex into the pond. The association brought a claim against the school
district and township seeking damages for negligence a nd violations of the Act.

After a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the association on
its claims for violations of the Act and for negligence. After various post

- trial
motions, the trial court issued an opinion that focused on the molding of the jury
verdict in accordance with the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
§ § 8541

- 8542 . It also addressed the statute of limitations, the contents of the
verdict slip, and the denial of the township’s motion in limine to exclude expert
testimony

. T he trial court briefly addressed the argument that “one cannot violate the [Act] unless one has violated the relevant county’s storm water management plan.” Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township ( No. 51
CD 2014, filed 4/14/2014); 2014 Pa. D

. & C

. Dec. LEXIS 561

, *1 0 . It stated as

follows:

Under this interpretation, the [s]chool [d]istrict posits that the

verdict was incorrect because [the association] offered “no evidence that any county storm water management plan ha d been violated.”... While the [s]chool [d]istrict is correct that the [Act] requires land alterations to be consistent with a county’s plan, the [s]chool [d]istrict seemingly ignores the rest of Section 13. The trial record is replete with evidence to supp ort the jury’s finding that the [s]chool [d]istrict’s development of the sports complex did not sufficiently control the rate, quantity, velocity and direction of the storm water runoff in a manner that adequate ly protected [the pond]. Therefore, the [s]c hool [d]istrict’s argument fails.

Id. at 7

- 8; *10

- 11 . This Court affirmed the trial court , holding that the verdict was
properly molded in accordance with the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act ; the association’s action was brought within the applicable statute of limitations period;14

the verdict slip was appropriate ; and the trial court properly denied the motion in

limine

. Lincoln argues that this Court’s affirmance of the judgment of the trial

court constitute d a rejection of the school dis trict’s argument that a watershed
storm water management plan is a prerequisite for a violation of Section 13 of the

Act. Further, by affirming the trial court, this Court adopted its above

- quoted
analysis . Hence, under Glenca n non this Court must hold th at a county

- adopted
watershed storm water management plan is not required to pursue damages for a

violation of Section 13 of the Act.

A n appellate court may affirm a decree for reasons other than those
given by the court below. Kraiser v. Horsham Townshi p , 455 A.2d 782, 784 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1983)

. In Glencannon , t he trial court treated the conduct set forth in
subsections (1) and (2) as separable from a county watershed storm water
management plan . Stated otherwise, it believed that a landowner can be held liable
under either subsection even if it did comply with the applicable watershed storm
water plan. However, t his Court did not address that portion of the trial court
opinion. Our analysis and holding focused on the molding of t he verdict, statute of limitations, contents of the verdict slip, and the trial court’s denial of the motion in

limine

. O ur affirmance of the trial court did not bind this Court to all of the language in the trial court’s opinion. T he issue of whether a county

- adopted

watershed storm water plan is a prerequisit e to liability for violating Section 13 of

the Act was never raised on appeal in Glencannon and not addressed by this Court.
Accordingly, we reject Lincoln’s contention that Glencannon is disposit ive here

.15 Conclusion

In sum , we hold that a violation of Section 13 of the Act requires a
showing that the l andowner’s conduct violated the terms of a county

- adopted
watershed storm water plan, as defined in Section 4 of the Act

. It follows, then,
that a watershed storm water plan is a prerequisite for the imposition of liability
under Section 15(c) of the Act, 3 2 P.S. §680.15 (c)

. Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s grant of summary judgment to D efendants as to Lincoln’s clai m for
damages under Section 1 3 of the Act that took place prior to February 2011, when
Chester County adopted a watershed storm water plan

.

______ _ _______________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lincoln Investors, L.P., : Lincoln Court, Inc., :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 2646 C.D. 2015

: Frank. A. King, Jr. and Glenn A. : King, Co

- Executors of the Estate of : Frank King; Lizelton, Inc.; Sam and : Sal Associates; William J. Mangan; : Liberty Square Condominium : Association of Chester County; RFP : Properties, Inc.; 271, L.P.; East : Whiteland Township; County of : Chester, PA; Pennsylvania : Department of Environmental : Protection; Pennsylvania Department : of Transportation; F.W. Houder, Inc.; : Peter Krasas, Jr. and Associates, : Inc. ; Edward A. Walsh and : Associates, Inc., Pancoast Clifford, : Inc.; Pickering Valley Contractors, : Inc.; and Lyons and Hohl :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22 nd day of December , 2016, the order of the Court
of Common Pleas of Chester County dated November 16, 2015 , in the above

c aptioned matter, is hereby AFFIRMED

.

_____ _ _____________________ _ __________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge