Opinion ID: 2628773
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CME Has Standing Under the Alternative Standing Test

Text: ¶ 15 A party has alternative standing when it is able to show that it is an appropriate party raising issues of significant public importance. Sierra Club, 2006 UT 74, ¶ 35, 148 P.3d 960. As addressed by this court in Sierra Club, this test breaks down to two elements: (1) is the plaintiff an appropriate party; and (2) does the dispute raise an issue of significant public importance. Id. ¶¶ 36-39. ¶ 16 First, CME is an appropriate party to challenge the validity of the County's land use decisions. To establish its appropriateness, CME is not required to show that it is the most appropriate party; instead, it is required to show that it has the interest necessary to effectively assist the court in developing and reviewing all relevant legal and factual questions and that the issues are unlikely to be raised if the party is denied standing. Id. (discussing the test established by Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1150 (Utah 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, in Sierra Club, we found that the Sierra Club was an appropriate party because it had the necessary interest in ensuring that the power plant at issue was constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental laws and administrative procedures. Id. ¶ 42. Further, we explained that the Sierra Club had the interest and expertise necessary to investigate and review all relevant legal and factual questions relating to the plant. Id. ¶ 17 Similarly, in this case, CME has the necessary interest and expertise. CME, as an adjoining property owner or occupant, has a sufficient interest in the appropriate permitting of any business with which it shares a boundary, especially a business that stores or disposes of radioactive waste. As a competing business interested in storing radioactive waste, it has an interest in any modification in the locale wherein the County allows radioactive waste businesses. Yet, it is CME's involvement in the nuclear waste industry that causes EnergySolutions to assert it is not an appropriate party. That is, EnergySolutions argues that CME is an inappropriate party because it is a self-interested competitor in the hazardous waste industry. However, there is nothing in this state's standing precedent that requires a party to have a beneficent interestor any particular character of interest. So, even though CME may be challenging the issuance of the conditional use permit and the reduction of the waste corridor because it wants to store nuclear waste itself, that does not diminish its interest. Additionally, CME has the necessary expertise to bring claims challenging the County's actions related to nuclear waste. As a competing waste-oriented business, CME has a working knowledge of the laws and regulations controlling radioactive waste and, therefore, has sufficient expertise to assist the court in developing and reviewing the legal and factual questions presented by a challenge to the County's land use decisions. Finally, no other parties are likely or, in this case, permitted to challenge the County's actions, as the short, thirty-day time frame for doing so has already passed. Thus, CME has the sufficient interest and expertise to assist the court in adjudicating a challenge to the County's actions. ¶ 18 Second, the claims alleged by CME raise issues of significant public importance. To show that an issue is of significant importance, CME must not only show that the issues are of a sufficient weight but also that they are not more appropriately addressed by another branch of government pursuant to the political process. Id. ¶ 39. And, [t]he more generalized the issues, the more likely they ought to be resolved in the legislative or executive branches. Id. To illustrate, in Sierra Club, the court held that because power plants emit hazardous chemicals, it is of significant public importance that in granting permits government officials comply with all applicable state and federal laws. Id. ¶ 44. Further, the court explained that the legislative and executive branch had already addressed the issue by passing environmental legislation and adopting administrative procedures. Id. Thus, whether government officials actually complied with the legislation and procedures was not more appropriately addressed by other branches, but was instead the proper providence of the judiciary. Id. ¶ 19 Again, this case is very similar to Sierra Club. The land use actions challenged in this case involve an industry that poses potential environmental and health-related harms to the citizens of Tooele County. It is of significant public importance that land use decisions involving the storage of hazardous waste are properly made in accordance with state and local laws. Further, the issues presented in this case are not so general as to require legislative or administrative action. Instead, the state and the County have already addressed the issues by enacting procedures for granting a conditional use permit and by creating the hazardous waste corridor. Thus, whether the County in fact complied with its own procedures is a proper issue for judicial resolution. In sum, by challenging the County's grant of a conditional use permit to EnergySolutions and its redrawing of the hazardous waste corridor, CME has raised issues of significant public importance. Therefore, CME, as an appropriate party, has alternative standing to raise these issues of public importance.