Whitehouse v. Davis
| Decision Date | 05 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000-10-Appeal.,2000-10-Appeal. |
| Citation | 774 A.2d 816 |
| Parties | Sheldon WHITEHOUSE et al. v. William DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
Terence J. Tierney, Asst. Attorney General John Andre Langlois (DEM), Providence, for Plaintiff.
Gregory L. Benik Thomas C. Plunkett, Providence, for Defendant.
This case came before the Supreme Court on April 4, 2001, on appeal from a decision by a justice of the Superior Court that decreed a statute requiring funding for a specific environmental hazard, an oil spill or threatened oil spill, applicable to the remediation of an environmental hazard caused by the stockpiling of millions of automobile tires.1 We agree with the statutory construction employed by the trial justice respecting the availability of funds from the Oil Spill Prevention, Administration and Response Fund (fund) which was created by G.L.1956 chapter 12.7 of title 46(act), and affirm the decision permitting money to be spent to dismantle the stockpile of tires, thereby preventing a catastrophic discharge of a petroleum-based product into the waters of the state.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. William Davis and Eleanor V. Davis (Davis or defendants) are the owners of a site in Smithfield, Rhode Island, which has become known as the "Davis Tire Pile" (Davis site). Throughout the years, Davis permitted approximately ten million tires to be dumped at this site.2 In 1992, the Department of Environmental Management (plaintiffs or DEM) declared the tire pile an extreme environmental hazard and prepared a response plan for a possible fire and the resultant melting of the tires. DEM determined that the site is hydrologically connected to Narragansett Bay (bay), and that a fire and its resultant release of significant amounts of oil and petroleum byproducts into the bay would be disastrous to Rhode Island's marine environment. In March 1993, DEM filed an action in Superior Court against Davis that eventually led to the Site Stabilization Plan; an endeavor designed to remove the tires and remediate the site. However, the funds available to implement this plan were depleted in 1999. On October 1, 1999, having no other source of money with which to continue the removal and in the context of this pending lawsuit, DEM moved for a declaratory judgment asking the Superior Court to declare the expenditure of money from the fund to be consistent with the statutory purposes of the act. Although Davis was the original defendant in this action, Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Corporation, d/b/a Exxon Company, USA, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and Sunoco, Inc. (intervenors), have intervened as members of the Rhode Island Petroleum Association.
The intervenors objected to this proposed use of the fund, arguing that the act does not permit funds set aside for oil spill prevention and response to be used to remediate a tire dump. Essentially, the intervenors claimed that the legislative intent behind the act did not contemplate the expenditure of funds for this purpose. In a written decision, the motion justice granted declaratory relief, reasoning that a fire at the Davis site would result in the "dissemination of oil, petroleum, and petroleum by-products into the water, the amount of which would be classified as an oil spill into the waters of our beloved State." Further, he found that "[t]he threat of the release of oil, petroleum, and petroleum by-products in this case is real and actual without the [c]ourt having to connect some obscure dots to obtain a tenuous result." Final judgment entered on December 17, 1999. The defendants, and the intervenors, have appealed.
As an initial matter, we recognize the unusual posture of this case. A declaratory judgment was sought in the context of a pending civil action to which the intervenors joined with respect to a discrete issue: whether or not the fund may be used to cover the cost of removing millions of tires from the Davis site. We shall assume, without deciding, that the parties to this action have standing to prosecute this appeal. Further, before oral argument in this case, plaintiffs filed with this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds arguing that the issues have been rendered moot because the site has been fully remediated and there are no remaining tire piles in the State of Rhode Island that DEM believes would qualify for cleanup costs derived from the fund. We deferred consideration of that issue until after oral argument. We are satisfied that this issue is justiciable.
This Court has held that on occasion we will review "questions of extreme public importance, which are capable of repetition but which evade review." Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 264 (R.I.1990) (quoting Morris v. D'Amario, 416 A.2d 137, 139 (R.I.1980)); see also Associated Builders & Contractors of Rhode Island Inc. v. City of Providence, 754 A.2d 89, 90 (R.I.2000)
; and Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748, 752 (R.I.1997). In the instant case, plaintiffs have acknowledged the existence of other tire fields in the state, and that the refusal to resort to the fund for remediation of these sites is a nonbinding administrative determination made by a state agency. It is clear that the danger from these environmental hazards and the availability of funds for their remediation are issues of extreme public importance. What is equally clear is that the refusal to reach the fund for the clean up costs of the remaining sites was an administrative determination that can be revisited at any time. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is capable of repetition yet evading review and decline to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. Further, in reaching the merits of this case, were we to rule in their favor, the intervenors might be entitled to seek additional relief in the Superior Court in the form of replenishment of the fund from other state resources.
The intervenors have argued that the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed because the plain language of the act, coupled with available legislative history, clearly and unambiguously demonstrates that the act was intended solely for the cleanup of oil spills and threatened oil spills. Additionally, the intervenors contended that the act does not allow for expenditures from the fund when there has been no release or threatened release of oil from the Davis site. We deem these arguments to be without merit.
We have previously determined "that an administrative agency will be accorded great deference in interpreting a statute whose administration and enforcement have been entrusted to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solas v. Emergency Hiring Council
...Court "will review `questions of extreme public importance, which are capable of repetition but which evade review.'" Whitehouse v. Davis, 774 A.2d 816, 818 (R.I.2001) (quoting Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 264 (R.I.1990)). In addressing the issue of mootness, the EHC, as it did on the issue......
-
NEW HARBOR VILLAGE v. NEW SHOREHAM ZONING
...We deem this to be a reasonable interpretation of the statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. See Whitehouse v. Davis, 774 A.2d 816, 818 (R.I.2001) ("An administrative agency is accorded great deference in interpreting a statute whose administration and enforcement have been ent......
-
State v. Cluley
...enforcement is entitled to weight anddeference as long as that construction is not clearly erroneous or unauthorized." Whitehouse v. Davis, 774 A.2d 816, 818-19 (R.I.2001) (quoting Gallison v. Bristol School Committee, 493 A.2d 164, 166 (R.I.1985)); see also Pawtucket Power Associates Limit......
-
Pakse Market Corp. v. McConaghy
...434 A.2d 266, 272 (R.I. 1981). Furthermore, an agency is afforded deference in interpreting its governing statute. Whitehouse v. Davis, 774 A.2d 816 (R.I. 2001). the DBR concluded that G.L. 1956 § 3-5-21(a) gives the Council the authority to proceed with the revocation hearing rather than c......