Sound Rivers, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Envtl. Quality
Docket Number | 306A20 |
Decision Date | 01 September 2023 |
Parties | SOUND RIVERS, INC. and NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION, INC. v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Heard in the Supreme Court on 27 April 2023.
Appeal pursuant to N.C. G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 271 N.C.App. 674 (2020), affirming in part and reversing in part orders entered on 13 November 2015 by Judge W. Douglas Parsons in Superior Court, Beaufort County, and on 30 October 2017, 4 December 2017, and 20 December 2017 by Judge Joshua W Willey, Jr. in Superior Court, Carteret County.
Southern Environmental Law Center, by Geoffrey R. Gisler Blakely E. Hildebrand, and Jean Y. Zhuang, for petitioner-appellees.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Asher P. Spiller, Assistant Attorney General and Scott A. Conklin, Assistant Attorney General, for respondentappellant.
Daniel F. E. Smith, Matthew B. Tynan, George W. House, Alexander Elkan, and V. Randall Tinsley, for intervenor-appellant.
On 24 July 2013, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (Division) issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Permit) to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin Marietta). This Permit allowed Martin Marietta to discharge 12 million gallons of mining wastewater per day from Vanceboro Quarry into "tributaries of Blounts Creek." On 30 November 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) from the Office of Administrative Hearings affirmed the issuance of the Permit. The ALJ made voluminous findings of fact. See Sound Rivers, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Div. of Water Res., 271 N.C.App. 674, 682 (2020). Sound Rivers, Inc. and North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc. filed a petition for judicial review with the superior court. The superior court reversed the ALJ's decision because the Division failed to "ensure reasonable compliance with the biological integrity standard." On 2 June 2020, the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, holding that "the ALJ correctly determined the Permit was properly and validly issued in accord with applicable regulations." Sound Rivers, Inc., 271 N.C.App. at 743. None of the ALJ's findings of fact were challenged on appeal to this Court.[1]
Given the unchallenged, binding findings of fact, the due regard the ALJ gave the factual matters within the Division's demonstrated knowledge and expertise, and the ALJ's plain language analysis of the biological integrity standard, we affirm.
This Court reviews questions of law de novo. Walker v. Bd. of Trustees of the N. Carolina Local, Governmental Employees' Ret. Sys., 348 N.C. 63, 65 (1998). Under de novo review, this Court's responsibility in this case is to review the statutory scheme and determine whether the ALJ and Court of Appeals correctly applied the law. See id. We agree with our learned colleague Justice Morgan's concurrence analyzing the missteps of the dissent regarding de novo review. As aptly noted in our concurring colleague's opinion," 'a reviewing court is not free to weigh the evidence presented to an administrative agency and substitute its evaluation of the evidence for that of the agency.' In re Appeal of McElwee, 304 N.C. 68, 75 (1981) (citing Appeal of AMP Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 562 (1975))." "[W]hen, as here, . . . findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168 (2011) (citing State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 37 (1984)).
Subsection (a) of N.C. G.S. § 150B-34 provides:
In each contested case the administrative law judge shall make a final decision or order that contains findings of fact and conclusions of law. The administrative law judge shall decide the case based upon the preponderance of the evidence, giving due regard to the demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the agency with respect to facts and inferences within the specialized knowledge of the agency.
N.C. G.S. § 150B-34(a) (2021) (emphasis added).
In this matter, "giving due regard to the demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the agency," the ALJ found that the biological integrity standard is within the "demonstrated knowledge and expertise" of the Division, administered by the Division, and within the Division's specialized knowledge "with respect to facts and inferences."[2] N.C. G.S. § 150B-34(a). Petitioners have not challenged these determinations or other related findings setting forth the experience and conduct of the Division's employees.
The ALJ decided this case based on the preponderance of the evidence and set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in a written order. The factual determinations by the ALJ are numerous, unchallenged, and binding. Thus, this Court cannot disturb them on review. See State v. Biber, 365 N.C. at 168.[3]
Specifically, the ALJ found, inter alia, that:
In reviewing whether the Division "failed to conduct a biological integrity analysis by inadequately sampling for 'species composition, diversity, population densities and functional organization' throughout the Blounts Creek aquatic ecosystem," the ALJ further found that:
Thus, the ALJ acknowledged that, although terms used in the biological integrity definition such as "species composition," "population densities" and "functional organization" are complex and technical, these terms have a plain meaning in the environmental regulatory context. The ALJ then found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Division properly applied its knowledge and expertise to that regulatory language and determined that it had sufficient information such that the biological sampling efforts sought by petitioners were unnecessary. The ALJ further found that the Division thoroughly evaluated compliance with the biological integrity standard before issuing the Permit.
Given the foregoing and other unchallenged findings of fact supporting these determinations, this Court should affirm the ALJ's final decision unless the ALJ's determinations were affected by an error of law.
The legislature has provided in N.C. G.S. § 150B-51(c) in relevant part:
In reviewing a final decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial