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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT