Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n, No. 84-2146
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | Before WALLACE and POOLE; WALLACE |
Citation | 768 F.2d 1077 |
Parties | , 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,919 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, an Administrative Agency of the State of California, Defendant-Appellee. |
Docket Number | No. 84-2146 |
Decision Date | 14 August 1985 |
Page 1077
v.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, an Administrative Agency of
the State of California, Defendant-Appellee.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 14, 1985.
Page 1078
Barbara R. Banke, Jess S. Jackson, Jackson, Jacobsen & Banke, San Francisco, Cal., James G. Heisinger, Carmel, Cal., Burton J. Goldstein, Goldstein, Barceloux & Goldstein, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Andrea Sheridan Ordin, N. Gregory Taylor, Joseph Barbieri, Linus Masourdeis, Asst. Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., F. Henry Habicht, II, Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Anne S. Almy, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Norman C. Gorsuch, Juneau, Alaska, Michael Lilly, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, Brian McKay, Carson City, Nev., David Frohnmayer, Salem, Or., John D. Leshy, Tempe, Ariz., Robert K. Corbin, Phoenix, Ariz., Mike Greely, Helena, Mont., Paul Bardacke, Santa Fe, N.M., David L. Wilkinson, Salt Lake City, Utah, amicus curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before WALLACE and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, * District Judge.
Page 1079
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Granite Rock Company (Granite Rock) appeals the district court's refusal to enjoin the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) from requiring Granite Rock to obtain a state permit in order to continue mining on federally owned forest land. Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Commission, 590 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Cal.1984) (Granite Rock). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We reverse.
Granite Rock is engaged in the business of mining chemical grade white limestone. Its mining operations involved in this appeal are located on an unpatented mining claim on land owned by the federal government in the Los Padres National Forest at Pico Blanco. Granite Rock acquired the mining claim at Pico Blanco in 1959 pursuant to the Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, 17 Stat. 91 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 30 U.S.C.) (Mining Act). It began mining the claim in 1981 after the United States Forest Service (Forest Service) approved its five-year plan of operations, which it had submitted as required for significant mining activities pursuant to regulations implemented under the Act of June 4, 1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11, 35 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.) (Organic Administration Act).
In 1983, the Coastal Commission advised Granite Rock that the California Coastal Act, Cal.Pub.Res. Code Secs. 30000-30900 (West 1977 & Supp.1985) (Coastal Act), required the company to obtain a state permit to continue its mining operations. The California legislature passed the Coastal Act in 1976 pursuant to the state's inherent police powers, as a reenactment of a 1972 initiative, and as an implementation of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1451-1464 (CZMA), which encourages state regulation of coastal zones. Granite Rock brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Coastal Commission from enforcing the state permit requirement. Because there were no factual issues in dispute, Granite Rock brought a motion for summary judgment challenging the state's legal authority to require the permit.
The district court denied Granite Rock's motion for summary judgment and then dismissed the action. Granite Rock, 590 F.Supp. at 1364, 1375. The court first reasoned that the land on which Granite Rock's claim was located did not fall within the CZMA's exclusion from the state's coastal zone. Id. at 1367-70. The district judge then concluded that the permit requirement was valid because states have concurrent legislative authority with Congress to regulate activities on federal lands within the coastal zone, the mining claim was not a federal enclave subject exclusively to federal regulation, and no federal statute or regulation preempted the state requirement. Id. at 1371-74. Granite Rock appeals.
The property clause of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2. Granite Rock argues that this is a grant of exclusive legislative power to Congress. It argues that states acquire power to regulate the use of federally owned property only if Congress expressly grants this power to them. Thus, because the federal government holds the title to the land in question, Granite Rock argues that California had no inherent police power to regulate the mining activity. The Coastal Commission concedes that the property clause grants Congress legislative power over federal lands, but it argues that the power is not exclusive--that states have concurrent legislative power to regulate the use of federal lands unless and until Congress affirmatively exercises its property clause power to preempt state regulation. We need not resolve this dispute over the proper interpretation of the property clause, however, if Congress has exercised its power to preempt the state's permit requirement.
Page 1080
We, therefore, turn initially to that issue.The Supreme Court recently articulated the test for federal preemption:
[S]tate law can be preempted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is preempted. If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still preempted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 104 S.Ct. 615, 621, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (citations omitted) (Silkwood).
Granite Rock argues that the state permit requirement is preempted either by the CZMA or by the Mining Act and certain Forest Service regulations promulgated under the Organic Administration Act. It contends that the CZMA preempts the state permit requirement because the CZMA evidences an intent on the part of Congress to reserve exclusively to itself the power to regulate the use of lands excluded from the coastal zone and because the CZMA excludes the land in question. Granite Rock argues that the Mining Act and Forest Service regulations preempt the permit requirement because the requirement stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of the statute and regulations. It contends that the purpose of the Mining Act is to encourage mining and that the state permit requirement is an obstacle to accomplishing this purpose either because the state will prohibit mining altogether on the land in question or because it will condition a permit on unreasonable state environmental requirements.
The Coastal Commission argues that none of the federal law relied on by Granite Rock preempts the state permit requirement. It contends that the CZMA does not exclude the land in question from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Company, No. 85-1200
...the CZMA not to be an independent cause of pre-emption except in cases of actual conflict between state and federal law. Pp. 589-593. 768 F.2d 1077, reversed and remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., j......
-
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Oberly, Civ. A. No. 84-330 MMS.
...be centered on the states, as opposed to local governments. 45 Plaintiffs also look to Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Commission, 768 F.2d 1077 (9th Cir.1985), to support their argument that the CZMA does not authorize the States to regulate in a manner otherwise impermissible under......
-
State ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc.
...Ventura County v. Gulf Oil Corp. (9th Cir.1979) 601 F.2d 1080, 1084-1085; Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n (9th Cir.1985) 768 F.2d 1077, State contends there is no conflict as the consent order does not "require" Texaco to acquire Getty's assets, but merely "permi......
-
Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, Civ. No. 94-0159-S-DAE.
...to abide by applicable environmental requirements lies with the Forest Service." Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n., 768 F.2d 1077, 1083 (9th Based on the established authority of the Forest Service over mining activities within national forests, the record compiled in this ......
-
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Company, No. 85-1200
...the CZMA not to be an independent cause of pre-emption except in cases of actual conflict between state and federal law. Pp. 589-593. 768 F.2d 1077, reversed and remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., j......
-
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Oberly, Civ. A. No. 84-330 MMS.
...be centered on the states, as opposed to local governments. 45 Plaintiffs also look to Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Commission, 768 F.2d 1077 (9th Cir.1985), to support their argument that the CZMA does not authorize the States to regulate in a manner otherwise impermissible under......
-
State ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc.
...Ventura County v. Gulf Oil Corp. (9th Cir.1979) 601 F.2d 1080, 1084-1085; Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n (9th Cir.1985) 768 F.2d 1077, State contends there is no conflict as the consent order does not "require" Texaco to acquire Getty's assets, but merely "permi......
-
Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, Civ. No. 94-0159-S-DAE.
...to abide by applicable environmental requirements lies with the Forest Service." Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n., 768 F.2d 1077, 1083 (9th Based on the established authority of the Forest Service over mining activities within national forests, the record compiled in this ......