Hostler v. Davison Cnty. Drainage Comm'n
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 29404-JMK |
| Parties | KENNETH HOSTLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVISON COUNTY DRAINAGE COMMISSION, Defendant, and JOHN MILLAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS APRIL 26, 2021
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DAVISON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE PATRICK T. SMITH Judge
DAVID L. GANJE Sun City, Arizona Attorney for plaintiff and appellee.
GARY R. LEISTICO JAYNE E. ESCH of Rinke Noonan, LTD St. Cloud Minnesota Attorneys for defendant and appellant.
[¶1.] John Millan applied for permits from the Davison County Drainage Commission (drainage commission) to install drain tile on his farmland in Davison County. The drainage commission held a public hearing on Millan's applications, at which Kenneth Hostler, Millan's downstream neighbor, appeared and objected to the permits. The drainage commission approved the permits, and Hostler appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed holding that the drainage commission abused its discretion in granting the permits because Millan failed to produce evidence before the drainage commission of compliance with the County drainage ordinances. Millan appeals. Because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hostler's challenge to the drainage commission's permitting decision, we vacate the circuit court's findings of fact conclusions of law, and order.
[¶2.] Davison County has adopted ordinances governing drainage projects on agricultural land. Per the ordinances, landowners must seek and receive approval in the form of a permit from the drainage commission before installing drain tile. The drainage commission is authorized by SDCL 46A-10A-30 to promulgate ordinances governing drainage permits in rural areas, but must do so consistent with the principles and factors set forth in SDCL 46A-10A-20. [¶3.] Millan owns farmland in Davison County, and in an effort to increase crop yields on his farmland, he applied for multiple drainage permits with the drainage commission on February 27, 2020.[1] Only four of Millan's applications are relevant to this appeal, and those applications outlined a planned network of 300, 000 feet of perforated drain tile and 15, 000 feet of solid drain tile, both of which would help remove excess surface water from 350 acres.
[¶4.] After Millan submitted his applications, his neighbors were notified of a hearing on the matter that was set for March 17, 2020. After the drainage commission approved a first set of applications at this hearing, Millan presented the second group of applications, which was composed of the four applications at issue here. These applications proposed to drain water into an outlet at the edge of Millan's land, and Hostler (Millan's first downstream neighbor) owned farmland just beyond this outlet. After presentation of this group of applications, Hostler voiced concern. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, the drainage commission voted 5-2 to approve the four permit applications at issue.
[¶5.] Shortly thereafter, Hostler filed a two-count complaint with the circuit court against Millan and the drainage commission, asserting the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear his challenge under SDCL 46A-10A-35 and County ordinance § 5:05.[2] Hostler asked the circuit court to declare the permits void and to issue a permanent injunction halting the project. Hostler claimed the drainage commission abused its discretion by failing to consider certain factors set forth in the relevant ordinances and State statutes. Fifteen days later, on April 18, Hostler moved for partial summary judgment.
[¶6.] On June 16, the circuit court heard oral argument on Hostler's motion. Hostler asserted that Millan's applications and the record before the drainage commission contained insufficient evidence to support issuance of the permits. The court permitted the parties to submit supplemental arguments in writing following the hearing. In his supplemental brief, Hostler argued that the drainage commission's In response, Millan argued that his applications and presentation at the hearing before the drainage commission were sufficient to apprise the drainage commission of the merits of his drainage plan.
[¶7.] On July 28, 2020, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and, on August 7, 2020, issued an order and findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating the memorandum opinion. The court granted Hostler's motion for partial summary judgment and voided the four permits, holding that the drainage commission abused its discretion by issuing the permits because Millan failed to provide sufficient evidence to the drainage commission of his compliance with the provisions of the drainage ordinances.
[¶8.] Millan appealed, raising multiple issues. However, we identified an issue with the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear Hostler's challenge to the drainage commission's permitting decision and, on October 1, 2021, ordered supplemental briefing from the parties. Having considered the briefs submitted, we address the dispositive issues set forth below regarding the circuit court's jurisdiction.
[¶9.] Both Hostler and Millan presented arguments regarding the circuit court's jurisdiction over Hostler's challenge to the drainage commission's decision. Hostler, the party who appealed the drainage permitting decision directly to the circuit court, acknowledges that "[n]either the appellate statute concerning county commissioners [SDCL 7-8-27] . . . nor the Davison County Ordinance provide a procedure for appealing a Davison County Drainage Commission decision to the circuit court." However, Hostler contends that "[t]he relief sought in the case at bar was properly sought under . . . SDCL § 46A-10A-35 and the South Dakota Declaratory Judgment Act." Hostler argues that "[d]eclaratory relief is the correct procedure [for] challenging an invasion of property rights." (citing Benson v. State, 2006 S.D. 8, ¶ 16, 710 N.W.2d 131, 142). Hostler contends that "[g]enerally, one is not required to exhaust administrative remedies if 'a party is not mandated or required to proceed administratively and a separate avenue of judicial review is available.'" (quoting Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 1997 S.D. 44, ¶ 10, 562 N.W.2d 122, 124 (citation omitted)).
[¶10.] Conversely, Millan argues that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction under SDCL 46A-10A-35 because that statute pertains to drainage conflicts, not permitting decisions. Rather, in Millan's view, SDCL 7-8-27 through -32 gives circuit courts authority "to hear appeals by anyone aggrieved by a drainage permitting decision[.]" However, Millan contends that "because Hostler has not shown that he is aggrieved by the Commission's decision to grant Millan's permit application[, ]" the circuit court did not have authority to hear Hostler's challenge. Millan then undertakes a standing analysis to show why Hostler has failed to satisfy the requirements to establish that he is an aggrieved party by proving that he was injured by the tiling project.
[¶11.] As a preliminary matter, we note that questions involving an asserted "lack of standing or lack of subject matter jurisdiction are separate arguments that require separate analyses." Lake Hendricks Imp. Ass'n v. Brookings Cnty. Planning and Zoning Comm'n, 2016 S.D. 48, ¶ 12, 882 N.W.2d 307, 311 (citation omitted). Specifically, "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to act[, ]" while standing is "a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." Id. ¶ 12, 882 N.W.2d at 311-12 (citations omitted). In our order for supplemental briefing, we directed the parties to analyze whether the circuit court had authority to act (jurisdiction), not whether the parties had a right to bring the action in court (standing). We acknowledge that the concepts are closely related especially "[w]hen the right to an appeal is purely statutory" as is the case here; in such cases a party "cannot invoke the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction absent standing under the statute identifying the parties entitled to bring suit." Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 882 N.W.2d at 312-13 (cleaned up). However, because we conclude the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hostler's appeal even if Hostler has standing, we decline to address the standing arguments raised by the parties.
[¶12.] In considering whether the circuit court had appellate jurisdiction to consider Hostler's challenge to the drainage permitting decision, we first analyze whether SDCL 46A-10A-35 provides jurisdiction for a circuit court to hear an appeal directly from a drainage commission's decision. SDCL 46A-10A-35 provides:
Any decision reached by a commission in order to settle a conflict involving drainage between landowners may be appealed to the board. Any board decision may be appealed or further appealed to the circuit court of the county wherein the conflict arose. An appeal under this section shall be commenced within...
To continue reading
Request your trial