Borough of Baldwin v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources
| Decision Date | 27 December 1974 |
| Parties | The BOROUGH OF BALDWIN and the Borough of Pleasant Hills, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, Appellee. SOUTH PARK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
John F. McGinty, Smiley & McGinty, Pittsburgh, for appellant-South Park Township.
John R. Luke, Luke and Dempsey, Pittsburgh, for appellant-Borough of Baldwin.
Henry E. Rea, Jr., Brandt, McManus, Brandt & Malone, Pittsburgh, for appellant-Pleasant Hills Authority.
Thomas M. Burke, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., KRAMER, WILKINSON, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), dated November 29, 1973, revoking a supersedeas granted to each of the municipal appellants on July 18, 1973.
The appellant Boroughs of Baldwin and Pleasant Hills, and the appellant Township of South Park (municipalities) are local government subdivisions located in the southwestern part of Allegheny County. In 1957, the Pleasant Hills Authority was formed to provide a sewage disposal plant for portions of these municipalities, and it now serves approximately 8,000 homes in the area.
On June 20, 1973 the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) issued orders to each of the municipalities reciting findings that raw sewage was occasionally by-passing the Pleasant Hills Authority plant and was polluting Lick Run, a water of the Commonwealth. This pollution was allegedly caused by the infiltration of surface and storm water into the sanitary sewer system during periods of heavy rainfall, when the resultant overload in the system required the Authority to open its by-pass gates and permit the excess water and raw sewage to flow, untreated, into Lick Run. To remedy this situation, the DER issued, without prior notice or opportunity for a hearing, an order which prohibited the municipalities from granting any new building permits, and it further directed that appropriate steps be taken to eliminate the excess infiltration. Upon receipt of these orders, the municipalities filed timely appeals and petitioned the EHB for supersedeas. A hearing was held on the petition for supersedeas, and, on July 18, 1973, the EHB granted the petitioners' request and permitted the issuance of a specific number of building permits up to November 19, 1973. 1 In addition, the order of the supersedeas directed the municipalities to submit information showing how the infiltration would be remedied by the date set for hearing the merits of the appeal. This date, November 19, 1973, passed without a hearing, 2 and, on November 29, 1973, the EHB issued again without notice and without an opportunity for hearing, another order revoking the July 18 supersedeas. The municipalities have now appealed to this Court from both the June 20, 1973 DER order and the November 29, 1973 EHB order.
The municipalities claim first that the original order of June 20, 1973, having issued without a prior hearing, violates the due process clause of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Recently, we have reiterated our position that due process does not require a hearing before the DER takes action to abate pollution. Borough of Carlisle v. Department of Environmental Resources, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ---, 330 A.2d 293 (filed December 27, 1974). But, in this case, we are not in a position even to consider this issue. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief sought must exhaust this remedy before the courts will act. Illinois Beef, L. & W.S., Inc. v. Henning, 76 Dauph. 260 (1960). This process has not been completed here. The municipalities in the case at hand have still not availed themselves of an opportunity for a hearing before the EHB. Until that hearing has been held and a final adjudication issues from that body, it would be premature for us to rule on questions concerning the DER order of June 20, 1973. We must dismiss, therefore, that aspect of the present appeal.
The municipalities make the same due process argument in their appeal from the November 29, 1973 order which revoked the supersedeas without an opportunity for a prior hearing. We must dismiss this appeal as well, but for different reasons. The supersedeas of July 18, 1973 was merely an interlocutory order suspending the DER sewer connection ban for the specific period of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerr v. Com., Dept. of State
...v. School Directors of Eastern School District, 17 Pa.Cmwlth. 637, 334 A.2d 310 (1975); Borough of Baldwin v. Department oF environmentaL resources, 16 pA.cmwlth. 545, 330 A.2d 589 (1974). the petitioner's remedy here, we must therefore note, is specifically provided for under the Administr......
-
Veerasingham v. Sharp
...Killian v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 46 Pa.Cmwlth. 219, 405 A.2d 1372 (1979); Borough of Baldwin v. Department of Environmental Resources, 16 Pa.Cmwlth. 545, 330 A.2d 589 (1974). The plaintiff had two statutory remedies available to him; he had a choice of two administrativ......
-
Fitzgerald v. Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia
...13 Pa.Cmwlth. at 635, 320 A.2d at 414. See also Williams v. San Giorgio Macaroni, Inc., 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 386, 319 A.2d 434 (1974). The [16 Pa.Cmwlth. 545] evidence here did not sufficiently assign the disability to the two accidents suffered by the claimant, and the Commission's finding that h......
-
Bentleyville Plaza, Inc., In re
... ... Elias v. Environmental Hearing Board, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 489, 312 A.2d 486 ... See Department of Environmental Resources v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 469 Pa. 578, 367 A.2d 222 (1976); Borough of Baldwin v. Department of Environmental ... ...