Opinion ID: 2123921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appellee b & ls

Text: On July 15, 1988, the NRC approved a permit for appellee B & LS to conduct surface coal mining operations at the Hornet Mine, located in Clay County, Indiana. As part of its mining operations, B & LS planned to pump surface and ground water from its mining pits. During the application process, several owners of property adjacent to the mine site expressed their concern that B & LS's pumping of water would drain their lakes, and asked the NRC for an explanation of the applicable laws of the State. On August 19, 1988, following NRC approval of the permit but prior to the permit's issuance, these land owners sent a letter to the DNR requesting an administrative hearing to review the approval of the permit. In a brief replying to the land owners' request, the DNR claimed that it had no authority to regulate ground water use. [3] Because the DNR contended that it had no authority to regulate B & LS's use of ground water or water replacement, on August 10, 1989 the land owners filed a request to withdraw their challenge to the NRC permit approval. [4] The NRC issued the permit on August 2, 1989. B & LS then began to operate a surface mining operation pursuant to that permit. After issuing the B & LS permit, the NRC determined, in the above AMAX proceedings, that the DNR did have the authority to regulate a surface coal mine operator's use of ground water. Prior to judicial review of the AMAX proceedings, the DNR issued a Director's Order to B & LS requiring the company to show that its surface coal mining operations would not cause damage to adjacent landowners by temporarily or permanently lowering offsite water bodies. The order, issued on May 17, 1991, stated: If temporary or permanent lowering of water bodies causes damage it will be contrary to DNR's interpretation of I-SMCRA. Therefore, B & LS must demonstrate one of the following: 1) Right of entry documentation for off-site lakes to be lowered through purchase, lease or easement which authorizes such lowering by the owner(s) of record of the water bodies. 2) B & LS operations will not cause damage as the result of the lowering of off-site water bodies as shown by appropriate hydrologic analysis of surface and groundwater mining operations and any other relevant factors as approved in a permit revision by the Department. Absent a showing of either, the DNR would declare the B & LS mining permit not in compliance with I-SMCRA. On June 3, 1991, B & LS filed its Verified Complaint and Petitions and Applications for Declaratory Judgment, Judicial Review, Injunction, Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, and Mandate and Prohibition in the Marion Superior Court. On June 4, 1991, B & LS filed a request for a hearing and oral argument on its motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On June 5, 1991, B & LS filed its Petition for Administrative Review, Stay, and Temporary Relief with the NRC. On June 11, 1991, the NRC/DNR filed its Motion to Dismiss, because B & LS had not exhausted its administrative remedies, and noting that administrative review was still pending. [5] On June 12, 1991, B & LS filed its response to the motion to dismiss, claiming that it was entitled to judicial review of a non-final agency action, due to the threat of immediate and irreparable harm. On June 14, 1991, the Marion Superior Court issued a Temporary Writ of Prohibition, Stay, and Restraining Order, which read: WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That [the NRC/DNR] and any of their personnel are prohibited from enforcing the Director's May 17, 1991 Order or using it as a basis for any violation of SMCRA until further Order of this Court On June 21, 1991, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the consolidation of B & LS's applications for preliminary and permanent injunctions. The trial court also ordered that the temporary writ of prohibition, stay, and restraining order were to remain in force. On August 21, 1991, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment. The Judgment read as follows: Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law set forth above, the Court now enters the following final judgment: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (A) That [B & LS's] Petitions and Applications For Declaratory Judgment, Injunction, Judicial Review and Writ Of Prohibition are GRANTED; (B) That this Court hereby declares as a matter of law that DNR and the Director had no authority to issue the Order of May 17, 1991; and (C) That effective immediately [the NRC/DNR] and any of their personnel are permanently prohibited and enjoined from enforcing the Director's May 17, 1991 Order or using it as a basis for any violation of SMCRA. Both the NRC/DNR and Jarrett appealed the trial court's decision in the AMAX case, and the NRC/DNR appealed the outcome of the B & LS case.