Jowers v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control
| Decision Date | 30 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27725,Appellate Case No. 2016-000428 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Jefferson JOWERS Sr., Andrew J. Anastos, Ben Williamson, Melanie Ruhlman, and Anthony Ruhlman, Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Respondent. |
Amy E. Armstrong, Amelia A. Thompson, and Jessie A. White, all of South Carolina Environmental Law Project, of Pawleys Island, for Appellants.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook, Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General T. Parkin C. Hunter, Assistant General Counsel Michael S. Traynham, all of Columbia and Lisa A. Reynolds, of Anderson, Reynolds & Stephens, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
M. McMullen Taylor, of Mullen Taylor, LLC, of Columbia and John D. Echeverria, of Vermont School of Law, South Royalton, Vermont, for Amicus Curiae, Congaree Riverkeeper, Inc.
This is a challenge to the registration provisions in the Surface Water Withdrawal Act. The plaintiffs claim those provisions are an unconstitutional taking, a violation of due process, and a violation of the public trust doctrine. The circuit court granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the grounds the case does not present a justiciable controversy, both because the plaintiffs lack standing and the dispute is not ripe for judicial determination. We affirm.
We originally decided this case in an opinion filed July 19, 2017. Jowers v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control , Op. No. 27725, ––– S.C. ––––, ––––, ––– S.E.2d ––––, ––––, 2017 WL 3045982 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed July 19, 2017) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 27 at 28). The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing as to our ruling that their claims for a violation of the public trust doctrine do not present a justiciable controversy. Neither side challenged our rulings that the plaintiffs' claims of an unconstitutional taking and a violation of due process are not justiciable, which were unanimous rulings. Therefore, we have not reconsidered those rulings, and we have repeated the explanation of them in section V of this opinion. We have reconsidered our ruling concerning the public trust claim, and we address that claim in section VI.
The Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act regulates surface water withdrawals in South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 49-4-10 to -180 (Supp. 2017). Surface water is defined as "all water that is wholly or partially within the State ... or within its jurisdiction, which is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff, including, but not limited to, lakes, streams, ponds, rivers, creeks, runs, springs, and reservoirs ...." § 49-4-20(27). The Department of Health and Environmental Control is charged with the implementation and enforcement of the Act. § 49-4-170. The Act establishes two mechanisms to regulate surface water withdrawals—a permitting system and a registration system.
The Act requires most "surface water withdrawers" to obtain a permit before withdrawing surface water. § 49-4-25. A "surface water withdrawer" is defined as "a person withdrawing surface water in excess of three million gallons during any one month ...." § 49-4-20(28). A permit applicant must provide detailed information to DHEC about the proposed surface water withdrawal. § 49-4-80(A). DHEC must provide the public with notice of a permit application within thirty days, and if residents of the affected area request a hearing, DHEC must conduct one. § 49-4-80(K)(1). If DHEC determines the proposed use is reasonable, DHEC must issue a permit to the applicant. §§ 49-4-25, -80(J). In making its determination of reasonableness, DHEC is required to consider a number of criteria. § 49-4-80(B).1 Permits are issued for a term of no less than twenty years and no more than fifty years. § 49-4-100(B). After a permit is issued, surface water withdrawals made pursuant to the terms and conditions of the permit are presumed to be reasonable. § 49-4-110(B).
Agricultural users are treated differently under the Act. "[A] person who makes surface water withdrawals for agricultural uses[2 ] at an agricultural facility[3 ]" is classified as a "Registered surface water withdrawer," § 49-4-20(23), and is not required to obtain a permit, § 49-4-35(A).4 Instead, agricultural users simply register their surface water use with DHEC and are permitted to withdraw surface water up to the registered amount. § 49-4-35(A). Because agricultural users are exempt from the permit requirement, their surface water use is not subject to the subsection 49-4-80(B) reasonableness factors.
§ 49-4-20(25). After DHEC determines whether the anticipated withdrawal amount is within the safe yield, it "must send a detailed description of its determination to the proposed registered surface water withdrawer." § 49-4-35(C).
§ 49-4-35(E).
Registration has three effects important to the plaintiffs' claims in this case. First, unlike permits, which are issued for a term of years, registrations have no time limits. Compare § 49-4-35(C) (), with § 49-4-100(B) (). Second, the Act presumes all registered amounts are reasonable. § 49-4-110(B). Third, the Act changes the elements for a private cause of action for damages by requiring plaintiffs to show a registered user is violating its registration. Id.
The plaintiffs own property along rivers or streams in Bamberg, Darlington, and Greenville counties. In September 2014, they jointly filed this action against DHEC in Barnwell County, challenging the Act's registration system for agricultural users in three ways. First, they claim the registration system is an unconstitutional taking of private property for private use. See S.C. CONST . art. I, § 13 (A) (). Second, they claim the Act violates their due process rights by depriving them of their property without notice or an opportunity to be heard. See U.S. CONST . amend. XIV, § 1 (); S.C. CONST . art. I, § 3 (). Finally, they claim the Act violates the public trust doctrine by disposing of assets the State holds in trust. See S.C. CONST . art. XIV, § 4 (); Sierra Club v. Kiawah Resort Assocs. , 318 S.C. 119, 128, 456 S.E.2d 397, 402 (1995) ().
The plaintiffs and DHEC filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of DHEC after finding the plaintiffs did not have standing and the case was not ripe. The circuit court also addressed the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court ruled the Act's registration process was not an unconstitutional taking because the plaintiffs were not deprived of any rights. Likewise, the circuit court held that without a deprivation of rights, there could be no violation of due process. The circuit court held the public trust doctrine was not violated because the plaintiffs had not lost their right to use the waterways or been injured by any withdrawals. The circuit court did not rule on
DHEC's contention the claims were barred by the statute of limitations or that venue was improper.
The plaintiffs appealed to the court of appeals and moved to certify the case to this Court pursuant to Rule 204(b) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. We granted the motion to certify.
Our courts will not address the merits of any case unless it presents a justiciable controversy. Byrd v. Irmo High Sch. , 321 S.C. 426, 430-31, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996). In Byrd , we stated, "Before any action can be maintained, there must exist a justiciable controversy," and, "This Court will not ... make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy." Id. ; see also Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Res. Planning Corp. , 358 S.C. 460, 477, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A FIGHTING STANCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LITIGATION.
...2018) (Wilson, J., dissenting) (citing Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1233, 1267); Jowers v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 815 S.E.2d 446, 460 (S.C. 2018) (Hearn, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at (304) Molodanof & Durney, supra......