No. 14537
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL,
Petitioner and Appellant,
BOARD OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,
Respondents and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding.
Counsel of P.ecord:
For Appellant:
Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, Great Falls, Montana
James A. Patten argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
John L. Peterson argued, Butte, Montana
-S&ra Muckelston, Helena, Montana
John W. Ross and -Robert Gannon, Butte, Montana
W. H. Bellingham, Billings, Montana
.,
Submitted: September 21, 1979
Decided: D E C - 6 1979
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
his a p p e a l i s from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f
t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t dismissing a p e t i t i o n f o r judi-
c i a l r e v i e w of a d e c i s i o n of t h e Montana Board of H e a l t h and
Environmental S c i e n c e s .
On J a n u a r y 20, 1978, t h e Montana Department o f H e a l t h
and Environmental S c i e n c e s ( t h e Department) i s s u e d t o a
c o n s o r t i u m o f n o r t h w e s t e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y companies, a
p e r m i t t o c o n s t r u c t two 700 megawatt e l e c t r i c power g e n e r a -
t i n g s t a t i o n s i n C o l s t r i p , Rosebud County, Montana. Pur-
s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 69-3911, R.C.M. 1947, t h e
p e t i t i o n e r h e r e i n r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Montana
Board o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s ( t h e Board) on
t h e Department's d e c i s i o n t o i s s u e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n permit.
The r e q u e s t e d h e a r i n g w a s h e l d on March 11, and on A p r i l 28
t h e Board a f f i r m e d t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o i s s u e t h e
permit .
On May 30, t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l
r e v i e w i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t .
The r e s p o n d e n t Board r e p l i e d by a motion t o d i s m i s s on J u n e
20; b e c a u s e t h e motion w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d by b r i e f , i t was
denied. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e Board responded by answer on J u l y
20. On J u l y 27, t h e r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s r e p l i e d w i t h a
motion t o d i s m i s s o r f o r a change o f venue. The Department
d i d n o t respond.
The b a s i s of r e s p o n d e n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n of l a c k of s u b j e c t
matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947,
which p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p e a l s o f d e c i s i o n s p u r s u a n t t o t h e
C l e a n A i r A c t of Montana b e f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r
t h e J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n which t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y i s
located. I n t h e p r e s e n t s u i t , respondents contend t h e
a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d i n C o l s t r i p , Rosebud County,
Montana. Thus, r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s a s s e r t t h e p r o p e r c o u r t
i n which t o p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t f o r t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e County o f
Rosebud. F u r t h e r , r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s assert t h a t s e c t i o n
69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n , and, t h e r e f o r e ,
t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t l a c k s
s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n .
Respondent u t i l i t i e s ' motion was s u p p o r t e d by memoran-
dum. P e t i t i o n e r responded o n August 1 w i t h a memorandum i n
opposition t o t h e motion. On August 24, r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i -
t i e s r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o d i s m i s s .
On September 1, w i t h o u t h o l d i n g t h e h e a r i n g a s re-
q u e s t e d , t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion t o d i s m i s s . The c o u r t
h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 69-3917 ( 4 ) ( a ) was a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i -
s i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t e e n t h
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t was t h e o n l y D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e s t a t e
t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e s u i t .
On September 1 8 , p e t i t i o n e r moved t h e c o u r t t o v a c a t e
i t s September 1 o r d e r and t o s e t a s i d e t h e judgment, o r , i n
t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o d i s m i s s .
A h e a r i n g on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 1 8 motion was n o t i c e d
f o r September 28. On September 2 1 , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a
n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t o f t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t ' s
t
September 1 o r d e r . On September 28, 1978, a h e a r i n g was
h e l d on p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o v a c a t e . A t t h a t hearing t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s s e r t e d t h a t b e c a u s e a n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o
t h e Supreme C o u r t had been f i l e d , i t no l o n g e r had t h e
a u t h o r i t y t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s September 18 motion t o
vacate.
P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e d t h a t under Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., the
c o u r t had c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on p e t i t i o n e r s
motion t o v a c a t e . The c o u r t d i d n o t a g r e e , and t h e h e a r i n g
w a s concluded.
Another n o t i c e of a p p e a l w a s f i l e d by p e t i t i o n e r on
October 6 , 1978, "from a n Order D i s m i s s i n g Cause s i g n e d i n
t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a u s e on September 1, 1978, and a l l
o r d e r s and r u l i n g s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g Order
Denying Motion t o V a c a t e , S e t Aside o r Hold H e a r i n g . "
A f t e r having s o u g h t j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o n May 30, 1978, on
r e s p o n d e n t B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n , p e t i t i o n e r on J u l y 1 3 , 1978,
f i l e d b e f o r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t Board of H e a l t h a n "Amendment t o
P e t i t i o n F o r a Rehearing of N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l ' s
O b j e c t i o n s t o t h e P e r m i t t o C o n s t r u c t , No. 1187, d a t e d
J a n u a r y 20, 1978." T h a t amendment r e c i t e d a new m a t t e r
which had n o t been c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l by r e s p o n d e n t Board
b e f o r e A p r i l 28, 1978--namely, t h e d e n i a l by t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency on J u n e 1 2 , 1978, o f
a p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t under r e g u l a t i o n s known a s Preven-
t i o n of S i g n i f i c a n t D e t e r i o r a t i o n (40 C.F.R. 52.21 e t s e q . )
t o c o n s t r u c t C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 . T h a t amended p e t i t i o n
f o r r e h e a r i n g was d e n i e d and p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t h e r " P e t i -
t i o n f o r J u d i c i a l Review" of r e s p o n d e n t B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n of
A p r i l 28, 1978, b u t t h i s t i m e i n t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, County of Rosebud.
The p e t i t i o n r e c i t e s i n P a r a g r a p h 1 t h e f a c t o f t h e
A p r i l 28, 1978, p e r m i t o r d e r by t h e r e s p o n d e n t Board and
r e c i t e s t h a t "on October 21, 1978, t h e Board of H e a l t h and
Environmental S c i e n c e s d e n i e d P e t i t i o n e r ' s Amended p e t i t i o n
f o r Rehearing. T h i s a p p e a l i s from t h a t d e c i s i o n , p u r s u a n t
t o s t a t u t e , and t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
S t a t u t e f o r J u d i c i a l Review." Then, e x c e p t f o r t h e a l l e g a -
t i o n s of j u r i s d i c t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r recites almost verbatim,
p a r a g r a p h by p a r a g r a p h and word f o r word, t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f
t h e b a s i s of t h e a p p e a l , which a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e a l l e g e d
i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w f i l e d May 30, 1978, i n
the F i r s t Judicial D i s t r i c t . The c a s e i n Rosebud County i s
p r e s e n t l y pending and r e a d y f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n on a number
o f p r o c e d u r a l and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s . It is clear,
however, b o t h a p p e a l s a r e i d e n t i c a l , e x c e p t t h a t t h e a l l e -
g a t i o n f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i n Rosebud County,
where p e t i t i o n e r now a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of
Rosebud County h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e s u c h c o u n t y i s t h e
s i t u s of t h e a f f e c t e d property--namely, C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and
4 e l e c t r i c generating plants.
There have been f o u r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r
review:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and d e c i d e p e t i t i o n e r ' s
a p p e a l f i l e d under s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA ( f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n
69-3917(3) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) , from a d e c i s i o n o f t h e
Board o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s d a t e d A p r i l 28,
1978, a f f i r m i n g t h e g r a n t i n g of a Clean A i r Act p e r m i t t o
r e s p o n d e n t u t i l i t i e s t o c o n s t r u c t two c o a l - f i r e d e l e c t r o n i c
g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t s ( C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 ) i n Rosebud County,
Montana?
2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e
p e t i t i o n upon motion o f r e s p o n d e n t w i t h o u t f i r s t h o l d i n g t h e
requested preliminary hearing?
3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h a t
p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of Montana
d i v e s t e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and
d e c i d e p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o v a c a t e o r d e r and s e t a s i d e
judgment o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a h e a r i n g ?
4. Whether t h i s a p p e a l i s moot by r e a s o n of p e t i -
t i o n e r ' s having f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e
S t a t e o f Montana, i n t h e County of Rosebud, s e e k i n g a d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n o f t h e same i s s u e s a s t h o s e s o u g h t t o be reviewed
i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n t h e
County of Lewis and C l a r k from which t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l w a s
taken?
Article VII, S e c t i o n 4 ( 2 ) , 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , p r o v i d e s ,
". . . [ t l h e l e g i s l a t u r e m a y p r o v i d e f o r d i r e c t r e v i e w by
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of d e c i s i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies."
The r i g h t of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of d e c i s i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a -
t i v e a g e n c i e s may be d e n i e d o r r e s t r i c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
t o particular courts:
"The r i g h t and power t o r e v i e w a c t i o n o f an ad-
m i n i s t r a t i v e agency e x i s t s i n some c o u r t s even
i n t h e absence of express p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t u t e s
r e l a t i n g t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s , and some
s u c h p r o v i s i o n s have been h e l d n o t t o d e p r i v e a
c o u r t o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n ; b u t , as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
l a w has
- - d e v e l o p e d , t h e m a n n e r a n d e x t e n t of j u d i -
c i a 1 review of a c t i o n - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies
of
and - c o u r t s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n
- the
u s u a l l y p r o v i d e d & s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g the p a r t i -
c u l a r agency, and o f t e n by g e n e r a l r e v i e w o r ad-
m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure a c t s . . ." 2 Am.Jur.2d
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w S732, p. 632. (Emphasis sup-
plied. )
The Montana Board of H e a l t h i s g r a n t e d a u t h o r i t y under
s e c t i o n 75-2-211, MCA, o f t h e Montana C l e a n A i r Act t o i s s u e
preconstruction permits. A f t e r f i n a l d e c i s i o n by t h e Board
o f H e a l t h , j u d i c i a l a p p e a l i s p e r m i t t e d by s e c t i o n 75-2-
411 ( 3 ) ( a ) , MCA, which p r o v i d e s :
"Within 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r re-
hearing i s denied o r , i f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s
a r a n t e d , w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n on
t h e r e h e a r i n g , a p a r t y a g g r i e v e d t h e r e b y may -
- ap-
p e a l - -e d i s f r i c t c o u r t - -e j u d i c i a l d i s -
t o th of t h
t r i c t - -e s t a t e which - -e s i t u s of p r o p e r t y
of t h is th
affected 9 the order." (Emphasis s u p s i e d . )
A s a r g u e d by p e t i t i o n e r , t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
P r o c e d u r e s A c t (MAPA) p r o v i d e s g e n e r a l l y f o r j u d i c i a l r e -
view. S e c t i o n 2-4-702, MCA. However, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
s u b s e c t i o n 2 ( a ) o f t h e A c t e x c l u d e s any p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t a s
follows:
". . . Except a s otherwise provided a statute,
t h e p e t i t i o n shall b e f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t f o r t h e c o u n t y where t h e p e t i t i o n e r re-
s i d e s o r h a s h i s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s o r
where t h e agency m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e
. . ." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
Arguments t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i t would s e e m t h a t p e t i -
t i o n e r h a s conceded s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA, t o be t h e p r o p e r
s t a t u t e and t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t h e p r o p e r forum
upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e second a p p e a l f o r r e v i e w i n Rosebud
County. Paragraph 6 of p e t i t i o n e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l
review f i l e d i n s a i d county pleads i n p a r t :
"6. P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 69-
3917 [now s e c t i o n 75-2-411, MCA] o f t h e Clean A i r
A c t o f Montana venue and j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r j u d i -
c i a l review i s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e
c o u n t y which i s t h e s i t u s o f t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y ;
t h a t t h e a f f e c t e d p r o p e r t y , C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and
4 , a r e t o b e s i t u a t e d i n t h e town o f C o l s t r i p ,
County of Rosebud, S t a t e of Montana."
To have complied w i t h t h e Clean A i r A c t , s e c t i o n 75-2-
4 1 1 , MCA, t h e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n on a p p e a l c o u l d o n l y have
been f i l e d and d e t e r m i n e d i n Rosebud County o f t h e S i x t e e n t h
Judicial D i s t r i c t .
O r a l arguments and b r i e f s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , it is dif-
f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d any l e g a l t h e o r y t h a t would s u p p o r t t h e
f i l i n g of t h e p r e s e n t appeal before t h e proceedings i n t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t had been concluded. The c o m p l a i n t by p e t i -
t i o n e r t h a t t i m e was v e r y s h o r t i s n o t w e l l t a k e n i n view o f
t h e f a c t t h a t a s t a t e agency w a s i n v o l v e d and Rule 5,
M.R.App.Civ.P., a l l o w s 60 d a y s from September 1, 1978, t o
f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal. I n a d d i t i o n , a Rule 59 motion t o
a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment t i m e l y f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t would have suspended t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e o f
appeal as t o a l l p a r t i e s . The argument t h a t a f t e r a p r o p e r
a p p e a l i s t a k e n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may s t i l l r e t a i n j u r i s -
d i c t i o n o f t h e c a u s e and c o n t i n u e t o h e a r and r u l e o n pend-
i n g m a t t e r s i s n o t t h e law i n Montana. T h e r e i s no need t o
b u r d e n t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h argument, b u t w e m e r e l y p o i n t o u t
t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s been c o n s i s t e n t i n i t s r u l i n g s t h a t upon
a proper appeal being taken, j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e cause
p a s s e s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , sub-
j e c t , however, t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o r r e c t
clerical errors. S e e McCormick v . McCormick ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168
Mont. 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 , 541 P.2d 765, and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
The r e m a i n i n g m a t t e r t o c o n s i d e r c o n c e r n s t h e a f f e c t o f
t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , s e e k i n g a
review o f i s s u e s i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e sought t o be reviewed i n
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , from
which t h e a p p e a l b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t was t a k e n . Petitioner
h a s made c l e a r t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d i s a
r e v e r s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s o as t o p e r m i t
venue t o b e d i r e c t e d by t h i s C o u r t t o t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t i n Rosebud County. P e t i t i o n e r does n o t contend
t h a t it i s e n t i t l e d t o a review on t h e m e r i t s i n t h e F i r s t
Judicial D i s t r i c t . Consequently, p e t i t i o n e r h a s p r e v i o u s l y
r e c e i v e d a l l t h e r e l i e f i t now r e q u e s t s from t h i s C o u r t ,
which h a s r e n d e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t moot, and
w e w i l l n o t p a s s o n moot q u e s t i o n s . S e e Adkins v. C i t y o f
L i v i n g s t o n ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 528, 532, 194 P.2d 238.
For t h e r e a s o n s enumerated, peal i s dismissed.
/
/ "~ u s t i c e
W concur:
e
+ . I 4
Honorable John M. McCarvel, D i s -
t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of
M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell
-.
,
/
Honorable J o s e p h B. Gary, D i s t r i c t
~ u d ~ s i ,t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r .
e
J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy