Smith v. LeFleur
Decision Date | 11 October 2019 |
Docket Number | 2180375 |
Citation | 329 So.3d 598 |
Parties | Ronald C. SMITH, Latonya Gipson, and William T. Gipson v. Lance R. LEFLEUR, in his official capacity as Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
David A. Ludder, Tallahassee, Florida, for appellants.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and S. Shawn Sibley and Paul Christian Sasser, Jr., assoc. gen. counsel, and asst. attys. gen., Alabama Department of Environmental Management, for appellee.
Ronald C. Smith, Latonya Gipson, and William T. Gipson ("the appellants") appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of Lance R. LeFleur ("the director"), in his official capacity as the director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM"). We reverse the summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a summary judgment for the appellants.
Since 2004, Ronald C. Smith has resided near the Stone's Throw Landfill located in Tallapoosa County.1 During that time, ADEM has permitted the operators of the Stone's Throw Landfill to use at least one material other than earth to cover solid waste deposited in the landfill. Since 2005, Latonya Gipson has resided near the Arrowhead Landfill located in Perry County. William T. Gipson, Latonya's brother, has resided with her at the same location for the last 10 years. Since 2009, ADEM has permitted the operators of the Arrowhead Landfill to use several materials other than earth to cover solid waste deposited in the landfill.
On January 9, 2017, the appellants2 filed a multicount complaint seeking, among other things, a judgment declaring that ADEM had impermissibly adopted Ala. Admin. Code (ADEM), Rules 335-13-4-.15, - .22, and - .23 ("the alternative-cover-materials rules"), allowing landfill operators to use alternative materials to cover solid waste in violation of the Solid Wastes and Recyclable Materials Management Act ("the SWRMMA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 22-27-1 et seq., which, they argued, authorizes the use of only earth to cover solid waste. The appellants further requested that the trial court enjoin ADEM from enforcing the alternative-cover-materials rules and from permitting the continued use of alternative-cover materials at the Stone's Throw Landfill and the Arrowhead Landfill. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but, on appeal, this court reversed the judgment insofar as it dismissed the claims against the director. See Keith v. LeFleur, 256 So. 3d 1206 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).3
Following the issuance of this court's opinion in Keith, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the first five counts of the complaint as moot,4 leaving for adjudication only the claims for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief. The appellants and the director both moved for a summary judgment as to those claims. The director argued that the appellants lacked standing to contest the validity of the alternative-cover-materials rules and asserted that those rules had been validly promulgated by ADEM pursuant to its statutory authority. The appellants asserted that they had standing to contest the alternative-cover-materials rules, which, they argued, had been adopted without statutory authority. On December 18, 2018, the trial court entered separate orders denying the appellants' summary-judgment motion and granting the director's summary-judgment motion. The appellants filed their notice of appeal to this court on January 23, 2019.5 This court conducted oral arguments in the case on August 14, 2019.
Act No. 771, § 1(h) (now codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 22-27-2(32) ) (emphasis added).
In 1976, Congress completely restructured federal laws regulating solid-waste disposal through the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-580, 90 Stat. 2795 (codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 - 6992k ). Through the RCRA, Congress ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA") to establish regulations "containing criteria for determining which facilities shall be classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be classified as open dumps ...." 42 U.S.C. § 6944(a). In 1979, the EPA acted on that legislative directive by promulgating regulations defining the minimum standards for sanitary landfills, 40 C.F.R. Part 257, which included regulations requiring "[p]eriodic application of cover material" described as "soil or other suitable material." 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.3-6(c)(4) and 257.3-8(e)(6) (emphasis added).
Although the EPA regulations recognized that material other than soil could be used to cover solid waste at a sanitary landfill, the first comprehensive rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the SWDA in 1981 established that solid waste disposed into any "sanitary landfill" operated within the state "shall be covered" by "[a] minimum of six inches of compacted earth" "at the conclusion of each day's operation." Ala. Admin. Code, Rule 335-13-4-.22(1)(a)1 (1981). The regulations did not, at that time, authorize the use of any alternative materials to cover solid waste.
In 1982, the Alabama Legislature created ADEM, Ala. Acts 1982, Act No. 32-612, § 4(i), and appointed ADEM as the state agency responsible for regulating solid-waste disposal. See Act No. 32-612, § 3(n); see also Ala. Code 1975, § 22-27-9 (enacted in 2008). On July 21, 1988, ADEM revised Rule 335-13-4-.22(1) to provide:
Rule 335-13-4-.22(1)(a)1. (1988) (emphasis added). That 1988 amendment introduced into Alabama the option for sanitary-landfill operators to cover solid waste by materials other than earth.
Ala. Admin. Code (ADEM), Rule 335-13-1-.03 (1993) ( ). ADEM further clarified in the definition that "[a] municipal solid waste landfill is a sanitary landfill." Id.
In 1993, ADEM also amended Rule 335-13-4-.22(1) to provide:
Ala. Admin. Code (ADEM), Rule 335-13-4-.22(1)(a)1. (1993) (bracketed language and emphasis added). ADEM furthermore...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. LeFleur (Ex parte LeFleur)
...of Environmental Management ("ADEM"), seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision in Smith v. LeFleur, [Ms. 2180375, October 11, 2019] 329 So. 3d 598 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019), in which the Court of Civil Appeals held that ADEM did not have the authority to amend Ala. Admin. Code (AD......
-
Munza v. Ivey
...of the plaintiff ...." ’ " Ex parte LeFleur, [Ms. 1190191, Nov. 6, 2020] 329 So. 3d 613, 624 (Ala. 2020) (quoting Smith v. LeFleur, 329 So. 3d 598, 605 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019), quoting in turn § 41-22-10 ) (emphasis omitted). In other words, the AAPA incorporates all the normal standing requi......
-
The Systematic Exclusion of Complainants and Impacted Communities in EPA External Civil Rights Compliance Office's Title VI Resolution Process: Recommendations for ECRCO and States
...For instance, the Portland Harbor Superfund Site contains ancestral homelands to 84. 85. Dewan, supra note 83. 86. 87. Smith v. LeFleur, 329 So.3d 598, 612 (Ala. Civ. App. Oct. 11, 2019). 88. Id . 89. PORTLAND HARBOR SUPERFUND, supra note 60, at 56. 90. Id . at 16. 91. Some Perry County pol......