Opinion ID: 2364427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternate Routes

Text: Although we are unable to reach the merits of the case at this time, we will address one issue that undoubtedly will arise as the council perfects its decision  the availability of alternate tie-in routes. Although the existence of alternatives alone may not be sufficient grounds to reject an application, that factor would weigh into the reasonableness of the council's rejection of an application to use a particular proposed route. The petitioners contend that the alternate routes suggested by the director are unavailable because they could not receive the requisite DEM permits. We are convinced, however, that because petitioners have neither applied for DEM approval, nor demonstrated that such application would be futile, they have failed to demonstrate that the pumping station route is their only practical option for tying into the sewer system. Generally, futility is considered to be an exception to the requirement that an individual obtain an agency's final decision before challenging governmental action under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to the United States Constitution, or a comparable state constitutional provision. See Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 61 (1st Cir.1991). Although the concept of futility most often arises in the context of takings cases, we believe the logic supporting the doctrine requires that we view with skepticism petitioners' contention that the pumping station route was their only alternative. Recognizing that futility is far easier to conceptualize than to define, the First Circuit explained that futility may be established in special circumstances when a permit application is not a `viable option' or where the permitting authority has made it `transparently clear' that a permit application will not be granted. Id. There may be a further facet of the futility exception, applicable where the degree of hardship that would be imposed by waiting for the permit process to run its course is so substantial and severe, and the prospects of obtaining the permit so unlikely, that the property may be found to be meaningfully burdened and the controversy concrete enough to warrant immediate judicial intervention. Id. at 61 n. 5 Because of the clear preference for following the prescribed application process, a party seeking to bypass the permitting procedure bears the burden of establishing futility and any doubt must be resolved against that party. Id. at 61. Thus, although futility can excuse a plaintiff's eschewal of a permit application, the mere possibility, or even the probability, that the responsible agency may deny the permit should not be enough to trigger the excuse.    To come within the exception, a sort of inevitability is required: the prospect of refusal must be certain (or nearly so). Id. [T]he filing of one meaningful application [for administrative relief] will ordinarily be a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, precondition for invoking the futility exception. Id. At this point the petitioners have not demonstrated that DEM rejection would be inevitable. Indeed, the town offered to assist the petitioners in obtaining DEM approval. Although DEM regulations prohibit unnecessary alterations to wetlands, the town and the petitioners still could convince DEM of the necessity of traversing the wetlands to avoid the pumping station while tying into the sewer system. See Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration and Enforcement of the Freshwater Wetlands Act, Department of Environmental Management, 12 Code R.I. Reg. 190-25-9.05 (2001). Thus, the petitioners have not established that the DEM application process would be an exercise in futility.