Saginaw County v. John Sexton Corp. of Michigan

• Decision Date: 08 July 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 81021
• Citation: 150 Mich.App. 677,389 N.W.2d 144
• Parties: COUNTY OF SAGINAW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN SEXTON CORPORATION OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant. 150 Mich.App. 677, 389 N.W.2d 144
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 144

389 N.W.2d 144

COUNTY OF SAGINAW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN SEXTON CORPORATION OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 81021.

150 Mich.App. 677, 389 N.W.2d 144

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 3, 1985.

Decided April 9, 1986.

Released for Publication July 8, 1986.

[150 MICHAPP 678] Borrello, Thomas & Jensen, P.C., by Leopold P. Borrello and Jill K. Smith, Saginaw, for plaintiff-appellee.

Richard A. Hamilton, Flint, for defendant-appellant.

Before KELLY, P.J., and ALLEN and SHUSTER ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right from a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff enjoining defendant from using its property for the disposal of solid waste from any county other than Saginaw County. We affirm.

Defendant John Sexton Corporation of Michigan is engaged in the business of solid waste disposal and is the owner of a parcel of property located in James Township, Saginaw County. In late 1980 and early 1981, defendant developed this property as a landfill site for nonhazardous solid waste. The controversy presented in the instant case is whether Saginaw County's solid waste management plan prohibits defendant from using the site for the disposal of solid waste generated in neighboring Bay County. An understanding of the facts and issues involved is facilitated by a review of the Solid Waste Management Act (Act 641), M.C.L. Sec. 299.401 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(1) et seq.

[150 MICHAPP 679] Act 641 was enacted in 1978, effective January 11, 1979, and repealed the garbage and refuse disposal act, M.C.L. Sec. 325.291 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 14.435(1) et seq., which provided for the licensing and regulation of refuse disposal facilities but did not require local planning or long-term solid waste management. Delta County v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 118 Mich.App. 458, 463, 325 N.W.2d 455 (1982), lv. den. 414 Mich. 954 (1982). The new act provided a comprehensive regulatory scheme imposing uniform, state-wide standards and procedures for solid waste disposal, transportation and planning and effectively preempted local control in this area, although significant opportunity for local involvement is built into the act. Southeastern Oakland County Incinerator Authority v. Avon Twp., 144 Mich.App. 39, 45-46, 372 N.W.2d 678 (1985); House Legislative Analysis, HB 6314, January 11, 1979.

Under the act, every Michigan county is required to prepare a 20-year solid waste management plan projecting the amount of solid waste that will be generated within that county and providing for its disposal at facilities in compliance with Act 641 and with the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. ¹ M.C.L. Sec. 299.425; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(25); South Haven Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 132 Mich.App. 222, 227, 346 N.W.2d 923 (1984); Delta County v. Dep't of Natural Resources, supra, 118 Mich.App. p. 462, 325 N.W.2d 425. Each county's solid waste management plan must be submitted to the director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for approval and, if approved, the local plan is incorporated as part of the state solid waste management plan. M.C.L. Sec. 299.432(1); M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(32)(1). The state directly[150 MICHAPP 680] regulates both the construction and operation of disposal sites and facilities in Michigan through the issuance of construction permits under M.C.L. Sec. 299.410; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(10) and operator licenses under M.C.L. Sec. 299.413; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(13).

Pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 299.425(3); M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(25)(3), plaintiff filed a notice of intent with the DNR in 1979, stating that it would prepare a county-wide solid waste management plan through its board of public works. Early in the planning stages, plaintiff contacted officials of both Bay and Midland Counties in an effort to determine whether there was interest in joint solid waste management planning. Neither county responded. Plaintiff proceeded to develop a plan which was eventually approved by the specially appointed 13-member planning committee required under M.C.L. Sec. 299.426; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(26), the Saginaw County Board of Commissioners and the individual municipalities located within Saginaw County. M.C.L. Sec. 299.428; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(28). Plaintiff's plan projected nine years of available landfill capacity in Saginaw County as of September 1982. One of the landfill sites reported in the plan was defendant's James Township landfill, identified as a disposal site for Saginaw County waste only. This plan was approved by the DNR on June 26, 1984, following the requisite notices and hearings. M.C.L. Sec. 299.427; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(27). ²

In July of 1984, defendant commenced operating a facility which it had constructed in Bay County to collect solid waste material generated in that county for transfer to the James Township landfill. Defendant had obtained a permit from the DNR on June 30, 1983, to construct its Bay County facility but was denied a license to operate under [150 MICHAPP 681] M.C.L. Sec. 299.413; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(13) because the DNR had not yet approved Bay County's solid waste management plan. The Bay County plan identified defendant's James Township landfill as a disposal site for Bay County waste, in direct conflict with plaintiff's solid waste management plan, already approved by the DNR and part of the state plan. Plaintiff formally objected to the Bay County plan and the DNR withheld its approval, in part because of the conflict over the use of defendant's James Township landfill. Defendant, however, obtained a license to operate its transfer facility from Bay City ³ and, in July of 1984, began transferring 70 to 75 tons of solid waste per day to its landfill in James Township.

Plaintiff promptly filed this lawsuit for injunctive relief. After a hearing conducted on August 3, 1984, the circuit court issued a preliminary injunction limiting the amount of solid waste materials transferred from the Bay County facility to the James Township landfill to three trailer-loads per day. A bench trial was conducted on September 11, 1984. The director of public works for Saginaw County testified that the disposal of an additional 75 tons of solid waste per day in Saginaw County would reduce the county's available landfill capacity from a nine-year to a five-year level. The director further pointed out that if the Bay County facility was allowed to operate at its maximum transfer capacity, plaintiff's overall landfill space would be reduced by as much as 40%.

The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff, holding that, although plaintiff's solid waste management plan did not expressly prohibit the disposal in Saginaw County of solid waste from Bay County or any other county, the plan did identify defendant's landfill for a specific and exclusive purpose and that defendant's activities significantly interfered with the plan adopted by the county and approved by the state. The court concluded that defendant could not continue transferring solid waste materials from [150 MICHAPP 682] Bay County and issued its permanent injunction on September 24, 1984.

Defendant's principal arguments both at trial and on appeal are that Act 641 does not authorize a county to prohibit the inter-county flow of solid waste and that a county's solid waste management plan need not identify a disposal area as serving another county before the private owner of that area is permitted to use the property for that purpose. We consider defendant's second argument regarding the necessity of identifying an inter-county disposal site as such in both counties' solid waste management plans.

Act 641 specifically authorizes and requires the director of the Department of Natural Resources to promulgate administrative rules governing the content, form and submission of waste management plans. M.C.L. Sec. 299.430(1); M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(30)(1). Pursuant to this statutory mandate, 1982 AACS, R 299.4711 was promulgated, setting forth detailed and specific requirements governing the development of an acceptable waste management plan. A county is required to realistically evaluate its access to disposal areas for 5-and 20-year periods. 1982 AACS, R 299.4711(e)(i))C). Moreover, the county must "identify specific sites for solid waste disposal areas for the 5-year period subsequent to plan approval or update". 1982 AACS, R 299.4711(e)(iii)(A).

The administrative rules specifically provide that inter-county transfers of solid waste materials [150 MICHAPP 683] must be identified in the plans of each county involved:

"A site for a solid waste disposal area that is located in one county, but serves another county, shall be identified in both county solid waste management plans." 1982 AACS, R 299.4711(e)(iii)(C).

Defendant argues that this rule merely instructs county planning agencies to ensure that solid waste generated within its boundaries is delivered only to facilities in compliance with state law, even where that facility is outside the planning county. We disagree and instead interpret 1982 AACS, R 299.4711(e)(iii)(C) as requiring inter-county planning and cooperation where there is an inter-county flow of solid waste.

In interpreting administrative rules and regulations, this Court assigns great deference to the interpretation provided by the administrative agency responsible for implementing them. Knauss v. State Employees' Retirement System, 143 Mich.App. 644, 648, 372 N.W.2d 643 (1985). It is clear that the DNR, the agency responsible for implementing the solid waste management rules and regulations, interprets 1982 AACS, R 299.4711(e)(iii)(C) as a requirement that inter-county waste disposal sites shall be designated as such in the involved counties' solid waste management plans. The DNR refused to approve Bay County's plan in part because defendant's landfill designated as a disposal area for Bay County waste was not similarly designated in Saginaw County's plan. We agree with the...