ILNews

COA affirms ruling in favor of mining company, DNR

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the decision to release a surface mining reclamation bond obtained by a mining company, finding the reclamation requirements of the Indiana Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act have been satisfied.

Squaw Creek Coal Co. was formed partly by Alcoa Inc. to mine coal from the Squaw Creek Mine. The coal was used to power Alcoa’s nearby aluminum production facility. In the 1960s and 1970s, Alcoa used abandoned haul roads in the mine to dispose of waste generated at its facility in coordination with the Indiana Department of Health. SCCC later obtained a permit to mine more of Squaw Creek Mine, and secured reclamation of the land with a bond.

At a public hearing on whether to release portions of the bond after active mining ended, concerns were raised about the disposal of Alcoa’s waste. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources approved the bond release, finding the threat of pollution wasn’t the type of impact anticipated by the bond requirements. An administrative law judge affirmed the decision to release parts of the bond, but vacated the DNR decision to affirm the release on other portions.

SCCC petitioned the trial court for judicial review, and the trial court reversed. Bill Musgrave, a former coal miner, appealed the trial court order in favor of SCCC and the DNR on SCCC’s petition for judicial review.

Musgrave filed a motion to dismiss SCCC’s petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction because the company did not serve summonses upon the NRC, the DNR, and the Indiana attorney general, and it didn’t pay the Marion Superior Court filing fee. The trial court denied the motion, which the appellate judges upheld. In Bill Musgrave v. Squaw Creek Coal Co. and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, No. 49A05-1104-MI-164, Judge L. Mark Bailey pointed out that the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act makes no mention of a filing fee and the Marion Superior Court prescribed no filing fee in this case. The judges also found SCCC’s process and service of its petition to be sufficient.

Musgrave is not collaterally estopped from challenging the DNR’s decision to release the reclamation bond on Permit S-008, as DNR and SCCC had argued, because the jurisdictional issue regarding Alcoa’s hazardous wastes was not necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding.

The trial court did not err by reversing the ALJ’s order and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of SCCC and the DNR. There is no genuine issue of material fact that SCCC met the Phase III release requirements of the Indiana Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, wrote Bailey, and SCCC also satisfied the requirements of the Indiana Administrative code and its own permit.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT