Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of La Plata County
| Decision Date | 28 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89CA1071,89CA1071 |
| Parties | BOWEN/EDWARDS ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LA PLATA COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Dugan, Wright, Ehlers & Zentmyer, Thomas P. Dugan, Thornton W. Price, III, Durango, for plaintiff-appellant.
Steven J. Zwick, County Atty., Frederick A. Moeller, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Durango, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge STERNBERG.
The plaintiff, Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc., appeals the trial court's dismissal of its complaint for lack of standing. We reverse and remand with directions.
In 1988, the defendant, the Board of County Commissioners of La Plata County, enacted regulations governing the development of oil and gas resources within the county. The Board adopted these regulations under the authority of § 29-20-104, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A) () and § 30-28-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A) (local government shall adopt master plan and zoning plan for unincorporated territory of county).
The plaintiff, along with several other entities involved in the oil and gas industry, sought a declaration that the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, § 34-60-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 14), confers exclusive authority to regulate oil and gas development upon the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, that the Act preempts local regulation in this area, and that the Board's regulations are in direct conflict with the Act. The complaint also sought to enjoin the Board from enforcing its regulations.
In its answer, the Board asserted that, because the plaintiffs had not applied for and been denied a permit under the regulations, they had not suffered actual injury. The Board then moved for dismissal because, it argued, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.
The trial court agreed with the Board, concluding that until the plaintiffs were denied a permit, there was no controversy for the court to adjudicate. The Board's motion to dismiss was granted, and this appeal by one of the initial plaintiffs followed.
The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by dismissing its case for lack of standing. We agree.
The determination of standing involves two questions: (1) whether the plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and (2) whether the injury is to a legally protected right. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (1977). The first question requires consideration whether the action complained of has caused or threatens to cause injury to the plaintiff. CF & I Steel Corp. v. Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, 199 Colo. 270, 610 P.2d 85 (1980); Wimberly v. Ettenberg, supra.
In the context of a declaratory judgment action, the purpose of which is to afford relief from uncertainty surrounding legal rights and relations, the determination whether a plaintiff has suffered injury can be difficult. See CF & I Steel Corp., supra; Beacom v. Board of County Commissioners, 657 P.2d 440 (Colo.1983).
Although such an action must be based on an actual controversy, a party need not violate the challenged statute or regulation in order to obtain a declaration of its invalidity. See State Board of Optometric Examiners v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488, 440 P.2d 287 (1968). It is sufficient that a party will be adversely affected by the challenged regulation. Community Tele-Communications v. Heather Corp., 677 P.2d 330 (Colo.1984).
We do not agree with the Board's assertion that, because the plaintiff has not been injured, its complaint is a request for an advisory opinion. The Board's reliance on cases such as Beacom, supra, and People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo.1989), is misplaced. In Beacom, no controversy existed because no question of statutory construction was presented, while in Ford, the plaintiff was not injured because the harm threatened by the statute was not imminent.
Here, on the other hand, the plaintiff's complaint demonstrates that the Board's regulations threaten to cause it injury. First, it is alleged that the plaintiff would be adversely affected by compliance with regulations which it considers unlawful. Second, if it complied with the regulations, the plaintiff would suffer economic injury because the Board's permit fees and bond requirements are greater than those of the state. Third, if the plaintiff proceeded with oil and gas development without a county permit, it would be subject to criminal sanctions. See Heather Corp., supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiff has standing to pursue this action, and that the trial court erroneously dismissed its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. COLORADO DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVS.
...judgment also extends to a party who claims to be adversely affected by a regulation. See Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.1990), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 830 P.2d 1045 Here, plaintiff contended that his rights ......
-
Board of County Com'rs, La Plata County v. Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc., 90SC516
...authority to enact land-use regulations for oil and gas operations within the county. In Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs of La Plata County, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.1990), the court of appeals held that Bowen/Edwards has standing to challenge La Plata County's land-......
-
Lundvall Bros., Inc. v. Voss, 89CA1282
...C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 14). We agree with the trial court that the City's regulations are invalid. Bowen/Edwards Associates v. Board of County Commissioners, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.1990) is dispositive of the issue of preemption. There we "By law, the Commission has the authority to 'promul......
-
CHAPTER 3 TITLE EXAMINATION OF FEE LANDS
...there are two cases on appeal before the Colorado Supreme Court...Bowen/Edwards, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of La Plata County, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo.App. 1990), Cert. Granted, and Lundvall Brothers, Inc. v. Voss (City of Greeley), 812 P.2d 693 (Colo.App. 1990), Cert. Granted, which......
-
Rule 57 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS.
...invalidity. It is sufficient that a party will be adversely affected by the challenged regulation. Bowen/Edwards v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo. App. 1990), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992). The right to a declaratory judgment extend......
-
CHAPTER 13 LAND USE AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: A SUMMING UP
...These are discussed in Worcester, supra note 7, at 19-22 to 19-24. [10] See, e.g. Bowen/Edwards Assocs. Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992); Voss v. Lundvall Bros., Inc., 830 P.2d 1061 (Colo. 1992).......
-
STATE CONSERVATION PRACTICES: A PRACTICAL LOOK AT COLORADO
...ones between the COGCC and local governments. See Bowen/Edwards Assoc. Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, La Plata County, Colorado, 812 P.2d 656 (Colo. App. 1990), rev'd in part, aff'd in part 831 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992); Lundvall Bros., Inc. v. Voss, 812 P.2d 693 (Colo. App. 1990) aff'......