NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL v
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14537 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL, Petitioner and Appellant, BOARD OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of P.ecord: For Appellant: Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, Great Falls, Montana James A. Patten argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: John L. Peterson argued, Butte, Montana -S&ra Muckelston, Helena, Montana John W. Ross and -Robert Gannon, Butte, Montana W. H. Bellingham, Billings, Montana . , Submitted: Decided: September 21, 1979 D E C - 6 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . his a p p e a l i s from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t dismissing a p e t i t i o n f o r judic i a l r e v i e w of a d e c i s i o n of t h e Montana Board of H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s . On J a n u a r y 20, 1978, t h e Montana Department o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s ( t h e Department) i s s u e d t o a c o n s o r t i u m o f n o r t h w e s t e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y companies, a p e r m i t t o c o n s t r u c t two 700 megawatt e l e c t r i c power g e n e r a t i n g s t a t i o n s i n C o l s t r i p , Rosebud County, Montana. s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 69-3911, R.C.M. Pur1947, t h e p e t i t i o n e r h e r e i n r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Montana Board o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s ( t h e Board) on t h e Department's d e c i s i o n t o i s s u e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n permit. The r e q u e s t e d h e a r i n g w a s h e l d on March 11, and on A p r i l 28 t h e Board a f f i r m e d t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o i s s u e t h e permit . On May 30, t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . The r e s p o n d e n t Board r e p l i e d by a motion t o d i s m i s s on J u n e 20; b e c a u s e t h e motion w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d by b r i e f , i t was denied. 20. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e Board responded by answer on J u l y On J u l y 27, t h e r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s r e p l i e d w i t h a motion t o d i s m i s s o r f o r a change o f venue. The Department d i d n o t respond. The b a s i s of r e s p o n d e n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n of l a c k of s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p e a l s o f d e c i s i o n s p u r s u a n t t o t h e C l e a n A i r A c t of Montana b e f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n which t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y i s located. I n t h e p r e s e n t s u i t , respondents contend t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d i n C o l s t r i p , Rosebud County, Montana. Thus, r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s a s s e r t t h e p r o p e r c o u r t i n which t o p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e County o f Rosebud. F u r t h e r , r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s assert t h a t s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t l a c k s s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . Respondent u t i l i t i e s ' motion was s u p p o r t e d by memorandum. P e t i t i o n e r responded o n August 1 w i t h a memorandum i n opposition t o t h e motion. On August 24, r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i - t i e s r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o d i s m i s s . On September 1, w i t h o u t h o l d i n g t h e h e a r i n g a s req u e s t e d , t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion t o d i s m i s s . The c o u r t h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) was a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t was t h e o n l y D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e s t a t e t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e s u i t . On September 1 8 , p e t i t i o n e r moved t h e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s September 1 o r d e r and t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment, o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o d i s m i s s . A h e a r i n g on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 1 8 motion was n o t i c e d f o r September 28. On September 2 1 , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t o f t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t ' s t September 1 o r d e r . On September 28, 1978, a h e a r i n g was h e l d on p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o v a c a t e . A t t h a t hearing t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s s e r t e d t h a t b e c a u s e a n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t had been f i l e d , i t no l o n g e r had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 18 motion t o vacate. P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e d t h a t under Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., the c o u r t had c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r s motion t o v a c a t e . The c o u r t d i d n o t a g r e e , and t h e h e a r i n g w a s concluded. Another n o t i c e of a p p e a l w a s f i l e d by p e t i t i o n e r on October 6 , 1978, "from a n Order D i s m i s s i n g Cause s i g n e d i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a u s e on September 1, 1978, and a l l o r d e r s and r u l i n g s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g Order Denying Motion t o V a c a t e , S e t Aside o r Hold H e a r i n g . " A f t e r having s o u g h t j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o n May 30, 1978, on r e s p o n d e n t B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n , p e t i t i o n e r on J u l y 1 3 , 1978, f i l e d b e f o r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t Board of H e a l t h a n "Amendment t o P e t i t i o n F o r a Rehearing of N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l ' s O b j e c t i o n s t o t h e P e r m i t t o C o n s t r u c t , No. J a n u a r y 20, 1978." 1187, d a t e d T h a t amendment r e c i t e d a new m a t t e r which had n o t been c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l by r e s p o n d e n t Board b e f o r e A p r i l 28, 1978--namely, t h e d e n i a l by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency on J u n e 1 2 , 1978, o f a p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t under r e g u l a t i o n s known a s Prevent i o n of S i g n i f i c a n t D e t e r i o r a t i o n (40 C.F.R. t o c o n s t r u c t C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 . 52.21 e t s e q . ) T h a t amended p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g was d e n i e d and p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t h e r " P e t i t i o n f o r J u d i c i a l Review" of r e s p o n d e n t B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n of A p r i l 28, 1978, b u t t h i s t i m e i n t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, County of Rosebud. The p e t i t i o n r e c i t e s i n P a r a g r a p h 1 t h e f a c t o f t h e A p r i l 28, 1978, p e r m i t o r d e r by t h e r e s p o n d e n t Board and r e c i t e s t h a t "on October 21, 1978, t h e Board of H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s d e n i e d P e t i t i o n e r ' s Amended p e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing. T h i s a p p e a l i s from t h a t d e c i s i o n , p u r s u a n t t o s t a t u t e , and t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e S t a t u t e f o r J u d i c i a l Review." Then, e x c e p t f o r t h e a l l e g a - t i o n s of j u r i s d i c t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r recites almost verbatim, p a r a g r a p h by p a r a g r a p h and word f o r word, t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e b a s i s of t h e a p p e a l , which a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e a l l e g e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w f i l e d May 30, 1978, i n the F i r s t Judicial D i s t r i c t . The c a s e i n Rosebud County i s p r e s e n t l y pending and r e a d y f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n on a number o f p r o c e d u r a l and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s . It is clear, however, b o t h a p p e a l s a r e i d e n t i c a l , e x c e p t t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i n Rosebud County, where p e t i t i o n e r now a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Rosebud County h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e s u c h c o u n t y i s t h e s i t u s of t h e a f f e c t e d property--namely, C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 e l e c t r i c generating plants. There have been f o u r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r review: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and d e c i d e p e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p e a l f i l e d under s e c t i o n 75-2-411, 69-3917(3) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) , R.C.M. MCA ( f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 1 9 4 7 ) , from a d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s d a t e d A p r i l 28, 1978, a f f i r m i n g t h e g r a n t i n g of a Clean A i r Act p e r m i t t o r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s t o c o n s t r u c t two c o a l - f i r e d e l e c t r o n i c g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t s ( C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 ) i n Rosebud County, Montana? 2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n upon motion o f r e s p o n d e n t w i t h o u t f i r s t h o l d i n g t h e requested preliminary hearing? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of Montana d i v e s t e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and d e c i d e p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o v a c a t e o r d e r and s e t a s i d e judgment o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a h e a r i n g ? 4. Whether t h i s a p p e a l i s moot by r e a s o n of p e t i - t i o n e r ' s having f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e o f Montana, i n t h e County of Rosebud, s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e same i s s u e s a s t h o s e s o u g h t t o be reviewed i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k from which t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l w a s taken? Article VII, ". . . S e c t i o n 4 ( 2 ) , 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , p r o v i d e s , [ t l h e l e g i s l a t u r e m a y p r o v i d e f o r d i r e c t r e v i e w by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of d e c i s i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies." The r i g h t of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of d e c i s i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s may be d e n i e d o r r e s t r i c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o particular courts: "The r i g h t and power t o r e v i e w a c t i o n o f an adm i n i s t r a t i v e agency e x i s t s i n some c o u r t s even i n t h e absence of express p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s , and some s u c h p r o v i s i o n s have been h e l d n o t t o d e p r i v e a c o u r t o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n ; b u t , as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w has - - d e v e l o p e d , t h e m a n n e r a n d e x t e n t of j u d i c i a 1 review of a c t i o n - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies of and - c o u r t s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n the u s u a l l y p r o v i d e d & s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g the p a r t i c u l a r agency, and o f t e n by g e n e r a l r e v i e w o r adm i n i s t r a t i v e procedure a c t s . 2 Am.Jur.2d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w S732, p. 632. (Emphasis supplied. ) . ." The Montana Board of H e a l t h i s g r a n t e d a u t h o r i t y under s e c t i o n 75-2-211, MCA, o f t h e Montana C l e a n A i r Act t o i s s u e preconstruction permits. A f t e r f i n a l d e c i s i o n by t h e Board o f H e a l t h , j u d i c i a l a p p e a l i s p e r m i t t e d by s e c t i o n 75-2411 ( 3 ) ( a ) , MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "Within 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing i s denied o r , i f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s a r a n t e d , w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e r e h e a r i n g , a p a r t y a g g r i e v e d t h e r e b y may - app e a l - -e d i s f r i c t c o u r t - -e j u d i c i a l d i s t o th of t h t r i c t - -e s t a t e which - -e s i t u s of p r o p e r t y of t h is th (Emphasis s u p s i e d . ) affected 9 the order." A s a r g u e d by p e t i t i o n e r , t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s A c t (MAPA) p r o v i d e s g e n e r a l l y f o r j u d i c i a l r e view. S e c t i o n 2-4-702, MCA. However, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s u b s e c t i o n 2 ( a ) o f t h e A c t e x c l u d e s any p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t a s follows: a ". . . Except a s otherwise provided statute, t h e p e t i t i o n shall b e f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t h e c o u n t y where t h e p e t i t i o n e r res i d e s o r h a s h i s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s o r where t h e agency m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . . ." Arguments t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i t would s e e m t h a t p e t i t i o n e r h a s conceded s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA, t o be t h e p r o p e r s t a t u t e and t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t h e p r o p e r forum upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e second a p p e a l f o r r e v i e w i n Rosebud County. Paragraph 6 of p e t i t i o n e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review f i l e d i n s a i d county pleads i n p a r t : "6. P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 693917 [now s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA] o f t h e Clean A i r A c t o f Montana venue and j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e c o u n t y which i s t h e s i t u s o f t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y ; t h a t t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y , C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 , a r e t o b e s i t u a t e d i n t h e town o f C o l s t r i p , County of Rosebud, S t a t e of Montana." To have complied w i t h t h e Clean A i r A c t , s e c t i o n 75-24 1 1 , MCA, t h e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n on a p p e a l c o u l d o n l y have been f i l e d and d e t e r m i n e d i n Rosebud County o f t h e S i x t e e n t h Judicial D i s t r i c t . O r a l arguments and b r i e f s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , it is dif- f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d any l e g a l t h e o r y t h a t would s u p p o r t t h e f i l i n g of t h e p r e s e n t appeal before t h e proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had been concluded. The c o m p l a i n t by p e t i - t i o n e r t h a t t i m e was v e r y s h o r t i s n o t w e l l t a k e n i n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t a s t a t e agency w a s i n v o l v e d and Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., a l l o w s 60 d a y s from September 1, 1978, t o f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal. I n a d d i t i o n , a Rule 59 motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment t i m e l y f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t would have suspended t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e o f appeal as t o a l l p a r t i e s . The argument t h a t a f t e r a p r o p e r a p p e a l i s t a k e n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may s t i l l r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a u s e and c o n t i n u e t o h e a r and r u l e o n pendi n g m a t t e r s i s n o t t h e law i n Montana. T h e r e i s no need t o b u r d e n t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h argument, b u t w e m e r e l y p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s been c o n s i s t e n t i n i t s r u l i n g s t h a t upon a proper appeal being taken, j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e cause p a s s e s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , subj e c t , however, t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o r r e c t clerical errors. Mont. S e e McCormick v . McCormick ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 , 541 P.2d 765, and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . The r e m a i n i n g m a t t e r t o c o n s i d e r c o n c e r n s t h e a f f e c t o f t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , s e e k i n g a review o f i s s u e s i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e sought t o be reviewed i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , from which t h e a p p e a l b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t was t a k e n . Petitioner h a s made c l e a r t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d i s a r e v e r s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s o as t o p e r m i t venue t o b e d i r e c t e d by t h i s C o u r t t o t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n Rosebud County. P e t i t i o n e r does n o t contend t h a t it i s e n t i t l e d t o a review on t h e m e r i t s i n t h e F i r s t Judicial D i s t r i c t . Consequently, p e t i t i o n e r h a s p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d a l l t h e r e l i e f i t now r e q u e s t s from t h i s C o u r t , which h a s r e n d e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t moot, and w e w i l l n o t p a s s o n moot q u e s t i o n s . S e e Adkins v. C i t y o f L i v i n g s t o n ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 528, 532, 194 P.2d 238. For t h e r e a s o n s enumerated, peal i s dismissed. / / "~ u s t i c e W concur: e + . 4 I Honorable John M. McCarvel, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell -. / , Honorable J o s e p h B. Gary, D i s t r i c t ~ u d ~ s i ,t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . e J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
