SMITH CHAPEL BAPTIST v. City of Durham
| Decision Date | 20 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 250PA97.,250PA97. |
| Citation | 517 S.E.2d 874,350 N.C. 822 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH CHAPEL BAPTIST CHURCH; Fellowship Baptist Church, Inc.; Layman's Chapel Baptist Church; and Calvary Baptist Church of Durham, North Carolina v. CITY OF DURHAM, a North Carolina Municipal Corporation. |
Stam, Fordham & Danchi, P.A., by Paul Stam, Jr., and Henry C. Fordham, Jr., Apex, for plaintiff-appellants.
Office of the City Attorney, by Karen A. Sindelar, Assistant City Attorney, for defendant-appellee.
Hunton & Williams, by Charles D. Case; and J. Michael Carpenter, General Counsel, North Carolina Home Builders Association, Raleigh, on behalf of North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, North Carolina Pork Council, North Carolina Aggregates Association, and North Carolina Home Builders Association, amici curiae.
Ward and Smith, P.A., by Frank H. Sheffield, Jr., New Bern, on behalf of Chatham County Agribusiness Council, amicus curiae.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, by H. Julian Philpott, Jr., General Counsel, and Stephen A. Woodson, Associate General Counsel, Raleigh, amicus curiae.
North Carolina League of Municipalities, by Gregory F. Schwitzgebel III, Assistant General Counsel, Raleigh, amicus curiae.
City of Charlotte, N.C., by Robert E. Hagemann and Judith A. Starrett, Assistant City Attorneys; and Mecklenburg County, N.C., by Marvin A. Bethune, County Attorney, Charlotte, amici curiae.
Cumberland County, N.C., by Garris Neil Yarborough, County Attorney, Grainger R. Barrett, Senior Staff Attorney, and Karen Musgrave, Staff Attorney; and City of Fayetteville, N.C., by Robert Cogswell, Fayetteville, City Attorney, amici curiae.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Daniel C. Oakley, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and Jennie Wilhelm Mau, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, amicus curiae.
Stormwater runoff is rain or snowmelt that does not evaporate or penetrate the ground and is collected by storm drains that transport it to receiving waters.
In 1987, the United States Congress enacted an amendment to the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) known as the Water Quality Act (WQA). See Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub.L. No. 100-4, 101 Stat. 7 (1987). The WQA represented the first major revision of the CWA since 1977, "clarifying certain areas of the law as well as granting new powers and responsibilities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states." Lawrence R. Liebesman & Elliott P. Laws, The Water Quality Act of 1987: A Major Step in Assuring the Quality of the Nation's Waters, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl.L.Inst.) 10311, 10312 (Aug. 1987).
The WQA requires, among other things, that cities of 100,000 or more in population obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in order to discharge stormwater from their municipal storm sewer systems (MS4s) into the nation's waters. Id. at 10324; see WQA § 405, Pub.L. No. 100-4, 101 Stat. 69 (1994) (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(D)). Any state desiring to administer its own permit program under the WQA may apply for permission to do so with the EPA. CWA § 402(b), Pub.L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 880, 880-81 (1972) (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)). In 1975, North Carolina received approval from the EPA to administer its own permit program under the CWA and was granted permission to continue this program under the WQA. As such, article 21 of chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes grants the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (formerly North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) the authority to administer this program. N.C.G.S. ch. 143, art. 21, pt. 1 (1993) (amended); see N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(a) ().
When Congress enacted the NPDES permitting program, it did not provide the states with funding to support these comprehensive stormwater management programs. N.C.G.S. § 160A-312(a) allows cities and towns to "acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, operate, and contract for the operation of any or all of the public enterprises as defined in this Article to furnish services to the city and its citizens." N.C.G.S. § 160A-312(a) (1994). In an effort to partially support local MS4s, the General Assembly ratified a bill in 1989 titled "An Act to Authorize Local Governments to Construct and Operate Storm Drainage Systems as Public Enterprises and to Provide Local Governments With Funding and Taxing Authority to Finance the Construction and Operation of Storm Drainage Systems." Act of July 15, 1989, ch. 643, 1989 N.C. Sess. Laws 1763. As part of this Act, the General Assembly amended N.C.G.S. § 160A-311 to include in its definition of public enterprises "[s]tructural and natural stormwater and drainage systems of all types." Id. at 1770; see N.C.G.S. § 160A-311(10) (1994).
Defendant City of Durham (City), in response to the impending NPDES permitting requirements, employed outside consultants to assist in planning and preparing for the requirements that would accompany the NPDES permit application process. These consultants opined that in order to comply with EPA regulations in the NPDES permitting process, the City must develop a comprehensive Stormwater Quality Management Program (SWQMP). Furthermore, the consultants recommended that the SWQMP not be funded through the City's general fund because it "is not a viable source of long-term funding" for the program because political factors constrain the City's willingness to increase property taxes.
On 6 June 1994, the City adopted ordinance number 10183, which created the City's stormwater management program. The ordinance provided for the creation of a stormwater utility (SWU) to finance the stormwater management plan and imposed a utility fee based on the impervious surfaces contained on an individual property. Durham, N.C., Code ch. 23, art. VIII, §§ 23-202, -203 (1994).
On 24 October 1996, the City filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to amend the trial court's judgment on the ground that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the trial court's conclusions with regard to which of the City's activities were related to stormwater infrastructure. On 26 November 1996, the trial court allowed the motion to reopen the case in order to take additional evidence "in the interest of justice." Thereafter, the trial court entered an amended judgment and order on 3 January 1997 in which it made additional findings of fact and conclusions of law but did not alter or amend its original judgment concluding that the City had operated its SWU in excess of its statutory authority. The City filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from both the original 11 October 1996 judgment and the amended 3 January 1997 judgment and order. Subsequently, the City filed a petition for discretionary review prior to a determination by the Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31, which was allowed by this Court on 23 July 1997. Oral arguments were initially heard in this Court on 19 November 1997, and an opinion was filed on 30 July 1998 in which this Court upheld the City's SWU ordinance on constitutional grounds. See Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 348 N.C. 632, 502 S.E.2d 364 (1998)
. This Court allowed plaintiffs' petition for rehearing pursuant to Rule 31(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure on 30 September 1998 and now renders this opinion, which supersedes the previous opinion filed by this Court on 30 July 1998.
On appeal, we are presented with three principal issues: (1) whether the City exceeded its enabling authority by enacting the ordinance and the fees thereunder, (2) whether the impervious area method of calculating the fees is constitutionally permissible, and (3) whether the remedy applied by the trial court was proper.
In deciding the first issue, we note that the City of Durham chose to establish a utility as the mechanism by which it would comply with the unfunded mandates of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Municipalities are authorized to establish and operate public enterprises like utilities pursuant to the statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. § 160A-311 and N.C.G.S. § 160A-314, which govern such public enterprises.
N.C.G.S. § 160A-314, which gives authority to fix and enforce rates, reads, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alexander
...of the legislature.’ " Ray v. N.C. Dep't of Transp. , 366 N.C. 1, 8, 727 S.E.2d 675 (2012) (quoting Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham , 350 N.C. 805, 812, 517 S.E.2d 874 (1999) ). "[T]he title is part of the bill when introduced, being placed there by its author, and probably at......
-
State v. Hilton
...plain, ‘the title of an act should be considered in ascertaining the intent of the legislature.’ Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 812, 517 S.E.2d 874, 879 (1999) (citing State ex rel. Cobey v. Simpson , 333 N.C. 81, 90, 423 S.E.2d 759, 764 (1992) )." Ray v. N.C. ......
-
City of Asheville v. State
...not to be invalidated by the courts absent some showing of arbitrary or discriminatory action." Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 816, 517 S.E.2d 874, 881 (1999) (first alteration in original) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, also in 1......
-
State v. Fletcher
...(first citing In re Forsyth County , 285 N.C. 64, 71, 203 S.E.2d 51, 55 (1974) ; and then citing Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham , 350 N.C. 805, 812, 517 S.E.2d 874, 879 (1999) ). Similarly, "[w]hile a criminal statute must be strictly construed against the State, the courts m......
-
Case List
...1980) Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm’n , 140 Vt. 178, 436 A.2d 760 (1981) Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham , 350 N.C. 805, 517 S.E.2d 874 (1999) Snider v. Board of County Comm’rs of Walla Walla County , 85 Wash. App. 371, 932 P.2d 704 (1997) BARGAINING FOR DEVELOPMENT Snow v. A......