State of Ind. v. Andrus, Civ. No. IP 78-500-C

• Decision Date: 06 October 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. No. IP 78-500-C,IP 78-501-C.
• Parties: STATE OF INDIANA; Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Governor of the State of Indiana; Joseph D. Cloud, Director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources; and Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Plaintiffs, v. Cecil D. ANDRUS, as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; Walter J. Heine, as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; United States Department of the Interior; and the United States of America, Defendants. INDIANA COAL ASSOCIATION; Meadowlark Farms, Inc.; Amax Coal Company, a division of Amax Inc.; Peabody Coal Company; and John A. Conlon, a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America; the United States Department of the Interior; Cecil D. Andrus, as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; and Walter J. Heine, as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

501 F. Supp. 452

STATE OF INDIANA; Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Governor of the State of Indiana; Joseph D. Cloud, Director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources; and Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Plaintiffs, v. Cecil D. ANDRUS, as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; Walter J. Heine, as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; United States Department of the Interior; and the United States of America, Defendants.

INDIANA COAL ASSOCIATION; Meadowlark Farms, Inc.; Amax Coal Company, a division of Amax Inc.; Peabody Coal Company; and John A. Conlon, a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America; the United States Department of the Interior; Cecil D. Andrus, as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; and Walter J. Heine, as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Defendants.

Civ. Nos. IP 78-500-C, IP 78-501-C.

United States District Court, S. D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

June 10, 1980.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted October 6, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Deputy Atty. Gen. Jack O'Neill, for State of Indiana.

G. Daniel Kelley, Jr., of Ice, Miller, Donadio & Ryan, Indianapolis, Ind., for Indiana Coal Assn., et al.

Jeffrey Klinger, Evansville, Ind., for Peabody Coal.

Wayne L. Kelley, Indianapolis, Ind., for Amax Coal.

Alfred T. Ghiorzi, Washington, D. C., Deputy U. S. Atty. Harold R. Bickham, Indianapolis, Ind., for Dept. of Interior.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted October 6, 1980. See 101 S.Ct. 67.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

NOLAND, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions seek a judgment declaring various portions of the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977 (the Act), 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 to 1328, unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged provisions by the Secretary of the Interior. The matter came before the Court for a trial on the merits on April 24, 1980, pursuant to joint motion and procedural stipulation by the parties. Defendant's motion to dismiss, taken under advisement at that time, will be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiffs include AMAX, Inc., through its division AMAX Coal Company, Peabody Coal Company, and members of the Indiana Coal Association, each of whom is an owner or operator of surface coal mines within the State of Indiana, Meadowlark Farms, Inc., which owns interests in realty, some of which are coal interests which it leases to AMAX, Inc., and conducts farming operations and other activities on the reclaimed land, James A. Conlon, a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana as well as the State of Indiana, Otis R. Bowen, M.D., its Governor, Joseph D. Cloud, Director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources which, pursuant to Ind. Code XXX-X-X-X (1976), is responsible for supervising and enforcing the Indiana Strip Mining Reclamation Act, and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

Defendant Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, its director, Walter J. Heine, and Cecil D. Andrus as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, are responsible for administering the Act and enforcing its provisions.

The complaints allege that the challenged provisions exceed the regulatory authority conferred upon the federal government under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and are not reasonably related to the legitimate end of controlling commerce-affected environmental problems, that they are unconstitutional land use control and planning regulations violative of the Tenth Amendment, that they place disproportionate burdens upon surface mining operations, and therefore upon Indiana coal mining, which is almost exclusively of the surface mining variety, and that they constitute a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of due process and Taking Clause requirements of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the challenged provisions, all of which are within Title V of the Act, are:

(a) § 507(b)(16) 30 U.S.C. § 1257(b)(16);

(b) § 701(20) 30 U.S.C. § 1291(20);

(c) § 508(a)(2), (3), (4), (8) and (10) 30 U.S.C. § 1258(a)(2), (3), (4), (8) and (10);

(d) § 510(d)(1) 30 U.S.C. § 1260(d)(1);

(e) § 515(b)(7) 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(7);

(f) § 515(b)(19) 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(19) insofar as that portion which provides "... achieve the approved postmining land use plan ...";

(g) § 515(b)(20) 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(20), as to that portion which provides, "when the regulatory authority approves a long-term intensive agricultural postmining land use" and further that portion "when the regulatory authority issues a written finding approving a long-term, intensive, agricultural postmining land use as part of the mining and reclamation plan ...;", and any other part which requires any post-mining land use.

(h) § 519(c)(2) 30 U.S.C. § 1269(c)(2), as to that portion which provides "... until soil productivity for prime farm lands has returned to equivalent levels of yield as nonmined land of the same soil type in the surrounding area under equivalent management practices";

(i) § 515(b)(3) 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(3);

(j) § 515(b)(5) 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(5);

(k) § 522(a), (c), (d), (e)(4) and (5) 30 U.S.C. § 1272(a), (c), (d), (e)(4) and (5); and

(l) § 510(b)(1) and (2) 30 U.S.C. § 1260 (b)(1) and (2) to the extent that it requires that a permit application be denied or approved depending on approval of the postmining land use or of any change in postmining land use from the premining land use.

(m) § 518(c) 30 U.S.C. § 1268(c).

(n) § 508(a)(2)(C) 30 U.S.C. § 1258(a) (2)(C) as to that portion "the productivity of the land prior to mining including appropriate classification as prime farm lands, as well as the average yield of food, fiber ... products ... obtained under high levels of management;"

(o) § 519(c)(2) 30 U.S.C. § 1269(c)(2) as to that portion which provides that a bond on prime farmland may not be released "until soil productivity for prime farm lands has returned to equivalent levels of yield as nonmined land of the same soil type in the surrounding area under equivalent management practices ...".

The challenged provisions constitute the heart of the Act, which was promulgated in 1977 primarily to counteract perceived adverse environmental effects of surface mining operations. See 30 U.S.C. § 1201(c). The legislation established a uniform set of mining and reclamation regulations to be implemented by way of conforming state enforcement programs, approval and supervision of which was made the responsibility of the newly-created Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Act is effective in two stages. From August 3, 1977 until either a state or federal program is implemented, a limited number of provisions are in effect §§ 501-504, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1254. This is commonly denoted as the interim phase, during which period the states must issue permits requiring compliance with the interim aspects of the federal Act § 502(a) and (b), 30 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and (b). Most of Title V become effective when either a state program is approved or a federal program is implemented § 504(a), 30 U.S.C. § 1254(a), and an operator must submit an application with reclamation plans for a permit within two months of the approval of a state program or the implementation of a federal program § 502(d), 30 U.S.C. § 1252(d). The Secretary of the Interior has issued regulations for the interim period republished as 30 C.F.R. §§ 710-725 pursuant to § 501(a) 30 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and regulations for the formulation, submittal and review process of state programs, as well as for permanent aspects of the Act 30 C.F.R. §§ 700-899, pursuant to § 501(b) 30 U.S.C. § 1251(b).

To retain authority over the regulation of surface mining operations and other matters encompassed within the Act, the states must pass laws and regulations for and submit a state program to the Secretary of the Interior § 504, 30 U.S.C. § 1254. The time for such submission was extended to March 3, 1980, by order of the District Court for the District of Columbia In Re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 13 ERC 1447 and 1586 (1979) because of the Secretary's delay in promulgating permanent regulations. A state program, including the legislation and regulations for the program, must conform to the Act and to the Secretary's regulations § 503(a)(1) and (7), 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1) and (7). If the state program is not approved, the Secretary must promulgate a federal program for the state. Permits and enforcement would then be accomplished by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, a part of the Department of the Interior.

The Court's jurisdiction in this case is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 2201 and 2202. Standing exists by virtue of the fact that at least one party has standing in regard to each issue. See California Banker's Association v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 44-46, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1509-1510, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974). Not all of the contested provisions are a part of the currently effective interim program. However, judicial determination as to the validity of various portions of the soon to be effective permanent program, with which any Indiana program must comply, will serve to clarify the extent to which the state program must conform to the Act's particularized requirements, and avoid enactment by the Indiana legislature of unnecessary laws and regulations. There can be no doubt that plaintiffs are currently aggrieved by the provisions being challenged. The Act has necessitated huge expenditures on the part of Indiana surface mine operators, and threatens to destroy Indiana's competitive position as a supplier of coal. Plaintiff...