Opinion ID: 2569316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Waste by Pollution

Text: ¶ 14 At the hearing on Kronseder's application for a groundwater permit Landowners attempted to argue that Kronseder's irrigation of its crops with effluent (manure mixed with fresh groundwater) would result in groundwater pollution. The Water Board limited its inquiry into waste by pollution to the construction and operation of Kronseder's wells and water distribution system. It held that jurisdiction to determine the potential for pollution as a result of the use and operation of lagoons and the land application system were outside its jurisdiction and within the purview of the State Department of Agriculture, specifically in this matter under the Oklahoma Feed Yards Act (now the Oklahoma Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 2, §§ 9-200-9-214 (Supps.1997 & 1999)). The Water Board found that the construction and operation of Kronseder's wells and water distribution system would not likely result in waste by pollution. Thus, the issue is whether Water Board's waste by pollution inquiry was properly limited to pollution that results from the extraction and transportation of groundwater and not from the groundwater's ultimate use. The Oklahoma Attorney General was permitted to file an amicus brief in opposition to the Water Board's position on the issue of waste by pollution. ¶ 15 Central to the issue is this Court's decision in Oklahoma Water Resources Board v. Texas County Irrigation and Water Resources Association, Inc., 711 P.2d 38 (Okla.1984) In Texas County, Mobil Oil Corporation sought to use fresh groundwater for tertiary recovering operations in an oil field. Although its tertiary process involved adding detergents and polymers to the groundwater, Mobil presented no evidence identifying the chemical additives or their effect on the groundwater. Id. at 45. This Court remanded the matter to the Water Board to receive evidence and make essential findings of fact to determine whether waste by pollution would occur. Id. at 47. On remand the Water Board was also directed to apply the following statutory definition of pollution: Wherever used in this title the following terms shall have the respective meanings hereinafter set forth or indicated, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. Pollution means contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of any natural waters of the state, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous or solid substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life. Id. at 44 (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 82, § 926.1 (1981), now codified at section 1084.2 of title 82). [2] ¶ 16 Kronseder and the Water Board, however, view the holding in Texas County as superseded by the enactment of the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 27A, § 1-1-201-1-4-107 (Supp.1999), in 1992 & 1993. That Act was intended to (1) address environmental concerns of industry and the public . . . in an expedient manner, (2) improve the tracking and resolution of citizen complaints, (3) better utilize state financial resources for environmental regulatory services, and (4) coordinate environmental activities of state environmental agencies. Id. at § 1-1-102 (Supp.1993). To further these purposes, the Act created the Secretary of Environment as a cabinet position and created the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. It also set out jurisdictional areas of environmental responsibility for each state environmental agency. See id. at § 1-3-101 (Supp.1992 & Supp.1999). The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture was given responsibility for point source discharges [3] and nonpoint source runoff from agricultural crop production, agricultural services, livestock production, silviculture, feed yards, livestock markets and animal waste. Id. at § 1-3-101(D)(1)(a). ¶ 17 The Water Board interpreted this as a grant of exclusive jurisdiction covering the disposal of animal waste effluent on agricultural crops. It further concluded that the Act superseded the Texas County requirement that a groundwater permit applicant must present evidence concerning the effect of what it adds to fresh groundwater and whether the additives will filter back and contaminate the groundwater formation. See 711 P.2d at 45. ¶ 18 The primary goal of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent. That intent is to be ascertained from the statute in light of its general purpose and object. It is presumed that the Legislature has expressed its intent in a statute and that it intended what is so expressed. TXO Prod'n Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 964, 968-969 (Okla.1992) (footnotes omitted). Section 1-3-101 assigns jurisdictional areas of responsibility to the state's environmental agencies. Only the Corporation Commission is given exclusive environmental jurisdiction in the area of oil and gas. See id. at § 1-3-101(c). By its own terms [t]he jurisdictional areas of environmental responsibility specified in this section shall be in addition to those otherwise provided by law and assigned to the specific state environmental agency. Nothing in the Act provides that the Department of Agriculture has exclusive jurisdiction which prevents the Water Board from granting a groundwater permit on a finding that the mixing of fresh groundwater with animal waste and its use of effluent for irrigation will not cause waste by pollution. The Act specifically made the Water Board's jurisdictional responsibility for pollution of groundwater in addition to that otherwise provided by law. This includes the directives contained in the Texas County opinion concerning waste by pollution. Further, the text of the Act evidences an intent that the Water Board and the Agriculture Department have concurrent environmental jurisdiction over livestock facilities which require water permits. The Court of Civil Appeals opinion which held that the Act superceded the Texas County opinion is vacated. On remand, the Water Resources Board is directed to receive evidence and make findings of fact to determine whether waste by pollution will occur through all uses of groundwater at Kronseders swine facilities, including the spread of effluent from its swine operation onto its land. Kronseder must present evidence concerning the effect of its effluent irrigation on the groundwater formation. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED IN PART; DECISION OF WATER RESOURCES BOARD REVERSED IN PART; CAUSE REMANDED TO WATER RESOURCES BOARD WITH DIRECTIONS. ¶ 19 HODGES, LAVENDER, KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. ¶ 20 HARGRAVE, V.C.J., OPALA, J., concur in part; dissent in part. ¶ 21 SUMMERS, C.J., BOUDREAU, J., disqualified.