Opinion ID: 1330450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Surface Mine Board's Jurisdiction

Text: The appellant asserts that the Surface Mine Board erroneously concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve his claim. As previously explained, the appellant's complaint is that American Bituminous should not be allowed to pump untreated acid mine drainage into the underground mine as well as not be allowed to discharge water from the power plant into such mine. The appellant maintains that because the untreated acid mine drainage came from the coal refuse pile, which is covered by American Bituminous's coal permit, then the Surface Mine Board had jurisdiction of his appeal. Conversely, the DEP asserts that although the Surface Mine Board would have had jurisdiction had appellant alleged that the area covered by American Bituminous's coal permit was discharging waste without a NPDES permit, the Surface Mine Board did not have jurisdiction to determine whether American Bituminous's NPDES permit had been properly issued in the first instance. As indicated above, the NPDES permit authorized American Bituminous to discharge the untreated acid mine drainage into the underground mine. Thus, the appellant's argument that American Bituminous should not be allowed to discharge such drainage into the underground mine concerns whether the Office of Water Resources should have issued the NPDES permit in the first instance. According to the DEP, appellant's argument, then, does not relate to the renewal of American Bituminous's coal permit. Furthermore, the DEP states that the appellant failed to offer any evidence indicating that the conditions for the renewal of the coal permit set forth in W. Va.Code, 22-3-19(a)(1) [1994] had not been satisfied. Therefore, the DEP asserts that the Surface Mine Board properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant's claim. We agree with the DEP. The NPDES permit reveals that American Bituminous's practice of pumping untreated acid mine drainage into the underground mine was approved by the Office of Water Resources. [11] As we previously explained, the Office of Water Resources issues NPDES permits for all activities regulated under coal permits which discharge a pollutant from a point source into the waters of this State. See W. Va.Code, 22-11-8(d) [1994] of the Water Pollution Control Act. Though the appellant insists that the issue is whether the DEP properly renewed American Bituminous's coal permit, we find that his real complaint is that the Office of Water Resources improperly issued in the first instance, a NPDES permit approving of American Bituminous's practice of pumping untreated acid mine drainage into the underground mine. Because the nature of the appellant's argument is that he is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit which authorizes American Bituminous to pump untreated acid mine drainage into the underground mine, the appellant must, pursuant to the express language of W. Va.Code, 22-11-21 [1994], appeal to the Environmental Quality Board rather than to the Surface Mine Board. [12] See syl. pt. 2, Keen v. Maxey, 193 W.Va. 423, 456 S.E.2d 550 (1995) (When a statute is clear and unambiguous, it's the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute). See also syl. pt. 1, Francis O. Day Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Reclamation Board of Review, 188 W.Va. 418, 424 S.E.2d 763 (1992) (Because administrative agencies are creatures of statutes, [t]hey have no general or common-law powers but [have] only such [power] as have been conferred upon them by law expressly or by implication. (quoted in relevant part)). We recognize that the Surface Mine Board, pursuant to W. Va.Code, 22-3-21(b) [1994] hears any appeal regarding the DEP's issuance of a coal permit under the Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, and thus, would hear an appeal regarding the DEP's renewal of American Bituminous's coal permit. However, our review of the record indicates that the appellant offered no evidence which indicates that the conditions for the renewal of American Bituminous's coal permit set forth in W. Va.Code, 22-3-19(a)(1) [1994], had not been satisfied. Accordingly, after thoroughly reviewing the record before us and the applicable statutes, we cannot conclude that the Surface Mine Board's decision was (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedures; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. See W. Va.Code, 29A-5-4(g) [1964]; syl. pt. 1, HCCRA, supra . Therefore, we affirm the January 25, 1996 order of the Circuit Court of Marion County. Affirmed. STARCHER, J., concurs and files a separate opinion.