Opinion ID: 876844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: clean air act

Text: The next issue raised by the plaintiffs is the failure of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES) to control air pollution from the 41A dump area. Plaintiffs contend that DHES has violated a clear legal duty controllable by a writ of mandate. Mandamus lies only to compel performance of a ministerial duty and never to compel the performance of a duty or power that requires the exercise of discretion. State ex rel. Wiedman v. City of Kalispell (1969), 154 Mont. 31, 34, 459 P.2d 694, 696. The relevant statute is section 75-2-204, MCA, which provides: The board may by rule prohibit the construction, installation, alteration, or use of a machine, equipment, device, or facility which it finds may directly or indirectly cause or contribute to air pollution or which is intended primarily to prevent or control the emission of air pollutants, unless a permit therefore has been obtained. The language of this statute is couched in terms which clearly indicate a discretionary function. The statute begins, The board may ... This clearly indicates that the legislature was giving the DHES a discretionary duty in this respect. Since the duty was discretionary rather than ministerial, a writ of mandate cannot be issued against DHES.