Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. Davis

• Decision Date: 19 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 77-48-A,77-48-A
• Citation: 420 A.2d 53
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR PRESERVATION OF WATERMAN LAKE et al. v. William DAVIS and John Coyne. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 53

420 A.2d 53

CITIZENS FOR PRESERVATION OF WATERMAN LAKE et al. v. William DAVIS and John Coyne.

No. 77-48-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Sept. 19, 1980.

Abedon, Michaelson, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Milton Stanzler, Lynette Labinger, Providence, for Citizens For Preservation of Waterman Lake et al.

Robert G. Flanders, Town Sol., Glocester, for plaintiffs.

James M. Shannahan, Robert C. Power, Providence, for defendants.

OPINION

BEVILACQUA, Chief Justice.

This is a civil action heard before a justice of the Superior Court sitting without a jury. Judgments were entered for the defendants, William Davis (Davis) and John Coyne (Coyne). The plaintiffs appealed from the judgments to this court.

After hearing arguments and considering the briefs of the parties, this court concluded that the record submitted was such that we were unable to consider and review properly the plaintiffs' appeals. We therefore remanded the case to the Superior Court directing that "the trial justice would be directed to implement his findings and set forth his reason for his ultimate ruling." Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. William Davis (Citizens I), R.I., 381 A.2d 1365, 1366 (1978). After further proceedings in the Superior Court, the plaintiffs' appeals were again docketed and considered by this court.

In September of 1974, the town of Glocester (the town) and Davis entered into a contract that, inter alia, granted Davis the right to use certain property as a commercial dump. This property, which Davis has designated as the Glocester Smithfield Regional Landfill (GSRL), is located partly in Glocester and partly in Smithfield. Shortly after Davis had begun to operate the GSRL dump under his contract with the town, he contracted with third parties to accept for disposal there refuse originating outside Glocester. Moreover, contrary to his representations to the then Department of Natural Resources ¹ (DNR) and the Department of Health, Davis apparently deposited refuse in wetlands located on the GSRL property.

On May 29, 1975, Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake, plaintiffs, a nonprofit Rhode Island corporation, and several individually named persons, ² filed the instant complaint. In its complaint, the Citizens group alleged, inter alia that Davis, in the course of operating the GSRL dump, violated the Fresh Water Wetlands Act (wetlands act), as enacted by P.L. 1971, ch. 213 § 1, now G.L. 1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 2-1-18 to § 2-1-25, by dumping trash and fill in a wetlands area without a permit; that he caused a nuisance to occur by polluting the waters of Nine Foot Brook, which is a tributary of Waterman Lake and which apparently runs through Glocester and Smithfield; that the trucks hauling refuse constituted a nuisance by virtue of the loud noise attending their operation; that Davis and Coyne conspired to violate certain ordinances of the town by permitting the disposal, within Glocester, of refuse originating outside Glocester; and that the September, 1974 contract between the town and Davis was illegal and invalid. The Citizens group prayed for injunctive and declaratory relief and for money damages. Prior to trial the town was permitted under Super.R.Civ.P. 24 to intervene as a plaintiff. In its complaint, as amended, the town alleged that Davis had breached the terms of the September, 1974 contract by disposing, at the GSRL dump, refuse originating outside Glocester, in violation of local ordinances. In addition, the town also claimed that Davis had violated the wetlands act. The town prayed for injunctive and declaratory relief. After hearing the claims asserted by the Citizens group and the town, the trial justice found for defendants on all issues; and judgments were entered accordingly.

To facilitate compliance with our mandate in Citizens I, the parties submitted a statement of stipulated findings of fact to the trial justice. In this appeal the Citizens group preliminarily have put into issue the effect that the stipulated findings of fact have upon additional evidence that the Citizens group specifically calls to our attention. An examination of the record clearly discloses that the parties agreed to be bound by the stipulated findings of fact which they jointly prepared. It also indicates that the additional evidence to which the Citizens group now refers in its briefs and oral argument was not part of the stipulated findings of fact but was presented by the Citizens group to the trial justice "for whatever weight or whatever determination and consideration he would give it * * *." Thus, to the extent that the findings and reasoning of the trial justice are inconsistent with the additional evidence, we are entitled to presume that he rejected it.

We shall now address the substantive issues raised in this appeal.

I

The first issue that we shall address is the contention put forth by the Citizens group and the town that the trial justice erred when he refused to enjoin Davis's dump operation until Davis had filed an application to alter wetlands in accordance with the wetlands act. The trial justice held that authority to enforce the wetlands act was exclusively vested in the DNR director and that neither the Citizens group nor the town had standing to enforce the wetlands act against Davis.

The Citizens group and the town contend that they are not attempting to enforce the wetlands act but that they are guaranteed certain rights under wetlands act and that they have a private cause of action for injunctive relief to secure those rights. See generally Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 74-85, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2086-91, 45 L.Ed.2d 26, 34-40 (1975). In particular, the Citizens group asserts that by virtue of § 2-1-22, plaintiff Freida S. Steere, whose property abuts wetlands located on the GSRL site, is entitled to notice and a public hearing before the DNR director on the question of Davis's alleged violations of the wetlands act. The town makes a similar claim. The Citizens group and the town argue that if they are not impliedly entitled to a cause of action for injunctive relief, then Davis may effectively frustrate their apparent rights under § 2-1-22 by refusing to file an application to alter wetlands. Additionally, the town asserts that it must have such a cause of action in order to effectuate its right under § 2-1-21 to review applications to alter wetlands. See generally Mills, Inc. v. Murphy, 116 R.I. 54, 64-67, 352 A.2d 661, 666-68 (1976). The town further asserts that the provisions of the wetlands act are an implied term of its September 1974 contract with Davis, which it may enforce through injunctive relief.

It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute may not be construed or extended but must be applied literally. Brier Mfg. Co. v. Norberg, R.I., 377 A.2d 345, 348 (1977); In re Shepard Co., 115 R.I. 290, 293-94, 342 A.2d 918, 922 (1975); Andreozzi v. D'Antuono, 113 R.I. 155, 159, 319 A.2d 16, 18 (1974).

Under the wetlands act all powers necessary to enforce its provisions are expressly vested in the DNR director. The director, in the first instance, determines which areas are to be designated as wetlands. Section 2-1-20.2. He has the authority to approve or disapprove applications, subject to the city or town wherein the area is located, for altering of wetlands. Section 2-1-21. He has broad powers to remedy any violation of the wetlands act. Sections 2-1-23 and 2-1-24. Significantly, he is authorized to obtain relief in equity or by prerogative writ whenever such relief is necessary to the proper performance of his duties under the wetlands act. Section 2-1-24. In view of the express statutory scheme of enforcement, we conclude that all enforcement powers are vested in the director. Moreover, nothing in the legislation indicates either expressly or implicitly an intent to create a remedy for a private citizen or a town or city to enforce the provisions of the wetlands act. Until the director acts, no other individual is authorized under the wetlands act to initiate any proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the wetlands act.

Similarly, we reject the town's contention that because existing law is a part of its contract with Davis, it may treat the wetlands act as a term of that contract which may be enforced through injunctive relief. We do not dispute the well-settled principle that existing law is an implied term of every contract. Sterling Engineering & Construction Co. v. Burrillville Housing Authority, 108 R.I. 723, 726, 279 A.2d 445, 447 (1971). This principle is, however, not applicable to the case before us. Neither is this a case in which we are called upon to construe an ambiguous contract; in such a case existing law is an extrinsic aid to discerning the contracting parties' intent, see, e. g., Deerhurst Estates v. Meadow Homes, Inc., 64 N.J.Super. 134, 152, 165 A.2d 543, 552-53 (1960). Nor is this a case in which an existing statute expressly creates a specific obligation between the contracting parties; in such a case the "statute is as much a part of the contract as if the statute had been actually written into the contract," see, e. g., Sterling Engineering & Construction Co. v. Burrillville Housing Authority, 108 R.I. at 726, 279 A.2d at 447; see generally 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 330 at 299-300 (1963).

II

The Citizens group and the town also challenge the trial justice's denial of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief which were based on Davis's alleged violation of the local ordinances regulating refuse disposal. These ordinances, in substance, prohibited both dumping by persons who are not residents of Glocester and the dumping of refuse originating outside Glocester.

The Citizens group sought a declaration that the contract was invalid because it apparently authorized Davis to import and dispose of refuse in violation of the local ordinances prohibiting foreign-refuse...