Mo. Coalition for Environment v. Herrmann

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
CitationMo. Coalition for Environment v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. 2004)
Decision Date01 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. SC 85696.,SC 85696.
PartiesMISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas A. HERRMANN, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Robert H. Dierker, Jr., J.

Kathleen G. Henry, Bruce A. Morrison, St. Louis, for appellants.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Shelley A. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Aaron P. Avila, Eileen T. McDonough, Environment & Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Stephen G. Jeffery, St. Louis, for amicus curiae Associated Industries of Missouri Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri.

Robert J. Brundage, Jefferson City, for amicus curiae Premium Standard Farms, Inc. and Contigroup Companies, Inc.

PER CURIAM.1

The United States Army received a five-year Missouri State Operating Permit (MSOP) in 1995 to discharge wastewater into rivers and streams near Fort Leonard Wood.2 As the permit's expiration date approached, the Army requested modifications of its permit from the department of natural resources. The modifications issued, signed by appointees of the department's director.

The Missouri Coalition for the Environment and others (the coalition) filed an appeal with the Missouri Clean Water Commission. The commission dismissed the appeal because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The circuit court agreed and entered judgment accordingly. The coalition appeals.

The commission has subject matter jurisdiction of the appeal. To the extent Craven v. State ex rel. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 160 (Mo.App.2000), is to the contrary, it is overruled. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Issue

The coalition argues that the commission erred in dismissing its appeal of the issuance of the permit modifications to Fort Leonard Wood upon the ground that the director had no authority to issue the permit. It claims that the director had authority to issue or deny MSOPs and that section 640.0103 confers upon the commission jurisdiction to hear appeals from their issuance or denial.

Standard of Review

In an appeal following judicial review of an administrative agency's decision, the appellate court reviews the agency's decision, not the court's judgment, and decides questions of law de novo. McGhee v. Dixon, 973 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Mo. banc 1998). Whether an agency possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law as such jurisdiction is controlled by statute. See Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc., 346 Mo. 710, 142 S.W.2d 866, 871 (1940).

Transfer of Clean Water Commission

In 1972, the state enacted a clean water law, which is now codified in chapter 644. This law contained a position of executive secretary of the clean water commission. In 1974, the Omnibus State Reorganization Act of 1974 (OSRA) was enacted. Section 10 of OSRA (now section 640.010) transferred the commission to the department of natural resources by type II transfer. Section 640.010.3.

Under this transfer type, a director of the department of natural resources was to supervise the transferred entity. OSRA section 1.7(b), appendix B, RSMo vol. 15. Such supervision included abolition of positions and allocation and reallocation of duties, functions and personnel. Id. In addition, the director was authorized to establish the internal organization of the department and allocate and reallocate duties and functions to promote economic and efficient administration and operation of the department. OSRA section 1.5(2), appendix B, RSMo vol. 15.

Exercising the authority conferred by OSRA, the position of executive secretary of the clean water commission was abolished. Department of Natural Resources Departmental Plan, appendix C(1), RSMo 1978, vol. 5, p. 4901. The department director appoints a staff director for the clean water commission. Id. Similarly, the department director appoints a director of the division of environmental quality. That division "performs all statutory functions" of the clean water commission. Id. The staff director and division director both approved the permits at issue in this case. Through the reorganization process, the executive secretary of the clean water commission was replaced for purposes of chapter 644.4

Appeal of Director Decisions

Section 640.010 sets out the duties of the director of the department of natural resources. The director is in charge of the department and coordinates and supervises all staff and other personnel within the department of natural resources. Mo. Const. article IV, section 47; section 640.010.1. The director appoints a director of staff to the clean water commission. Section 640.010.2. Decisions of the director are subject to appeal to the commission. Section 640.010.1.

As to the permits in this case, those approving the permits did so as representatives of the director. As such, the decisions are the director's, subject to appeal. Id. Section 644.051.6 grants those denied a permit the right to appeal to the commission, and any person with an interest that is or may be adversely affected by a permit decision is permitted to appeal to the commission by 10 CSR 20-6.020(5)(C).5 Section 644.051.6 does not limit the right of appeal to the commission solely to those denied a permit, and 10 CSR 20-6.020(5)(C) is not in conflict. See State ex rel. State v. Riley, 992 S.W.2d 195, 196 (Mo. banc 1999). Therefore, the commission has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the coalition's appeal.

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

All concur.

1. This Court transferred this case after opinion by the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, authored by the Honorable Mary R. Russell. Mo. Const. article V, section 10. Parts of that opinion are incorporated without further attribution.

2. MSOP is another name for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued in this state. See Scott Tie Co. v. Mo. Clean Water Comm'n, 972 S.W.2d...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
21 cases
  • Diggs v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 24, 2020
    ...review of an administrative agency's decision, we review the decision of the agency, not of the trial court. Mo. Coalition for Environment v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Mo. banc 2004). Our task is to make a "single determination whether, considering the whole record, there is sufficient......
  • Tendai v. Bd. of Reg. for Healing Arts
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 5, 2005
    ...court.5 This Court reviews the decisions of the hearing commission and the board, not the circuit court. Mo. Coalition for the Environment v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Mo. banc 2004); State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 152 (Mo. banc 2003). Factu......
  • Versatile Management Group v. Finke
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 2008
    ...administrative agency, this Court reviews the decision of the agency, not the decision of the circuit court. Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Mo. banc 2004); Moto, 88 S.W.3d at 99. We presume that the agency's decision is correct. Reed v. Missouri Dep......
  • Valley Park Props., LLC v. Mo. Dep't of Natural Res.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 2019
    ...the decision of an administrative agency, we review any questions of law and statutory interpretations de novo. Mo. Coal. for the Env't v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Mo. banc 2004) (per curiam); see Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 18 ; Section 536.140. We "must correct erroneous interpretations......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Section 15 Judicial Review of Statutory Authority for Agency Action
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Administrative Law Deskbook Chapter 4 Judicial Review of Missouri Administrative Action
    • Invalid date
    ...court, which will correct an agency’s erroneous interpretations of its statutory authority. Mo. Coal. for the Env’t v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Mo. banc 2004). The primary rule of interpretation applicable to judicial review of an agency statute is to ascertain the legislative intent ......
  • Section 2 Overview of Permitting Requirements
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Farm Law Deskbook Chapter 2 Environmental Issues
    • Invalid date
    ...that is or may be adversely affected” may appeal a permit issued under the Missouri Clean Water Law. Mo. Coal. for the Env’t v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2004). This case overruled an appellate court decision that had limited appeals of Clean Water Law permits to permit holder......
  • Section 62 Clean Water Commission of the State of Missouri
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Administrative Law Deskbook Chapter 24 Agency SummariesAgency Summaries
    • Invalid date
    ...of a permit to an applicant, as authorized by § 640.010, RSMo 2000, and 10 CSR 20‑6.020(5)(C); see Mo. Coal. for Env’t v. Herrmann, 142 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2004) Appeals under 10 CSR 20‑6.060(7) for denial or grant of a certification under § 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, 62 Stat. 115......