Summary 2010 WY 20

Summary of Decision issued February 25, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Wyo. Outdoor Council v. Wyo. DEQ

Citation: 2010 WY 20

Docket Number: S-09-0062

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant Wyo. Outdoor Council, Powder River Basin Resource Council: Steve Jones, Watershed Protection Program Attorney, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Wyo. DEQ, Water Quality Div.: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Jay A. Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; John Burbridge, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee Marathon Oil Co.: Brent R. Kunz of Hathaway & Kunz, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; John C. Martin, Duane A Siler, and Ben A. Ellison of Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC.

Representing Appellee Petroleum Assoc. of Wyoming: John A. Masterson of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: After the Wyo. Environmental Quality Council (EQC) adopted the DEQ proposed revisions to Chapter 1 of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations (WWQR&R), the Wyo. Outdoor Council and the Powder River Basin Resource Council filed a petition challenging the new rules. The petitioners filed the DEQ as the respondent. Finding that the proper party was the EQC, which the petition did not name, the district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Whether the district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the petition did not name the EQC: The DEQ and EQC were created by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. The DEQ is a department within the executive branch and consists of six divisions including the water quality division. The director of DEQ appoints administrators for each division. The administrators enforce and administer the Environmental Quality Act and the rules and standards promulgated under the Act. Administrators also receive public comment and after consultation, recommend rules to the director. The EQC is responsible for conducting public hearings on changes the DEQ proposes to the DEQ rules. EQC is also charged with approving or disapproving the DEQ’s proposed rule changes. EQC is responsible for conducting public hearings on changes the DEQ proposes to the DEQ rules. The EQC is also charged with approving or disapproving the DEQ’s proposed rule changes. DEQ and its divisions are responsible for recommending, enforcing and administering DEQ rules and changes to the rules. The DEQ was a proper party to the district court appeal. As the administrative agency statutorily charged with carrying out the purposes of the Environmental Quality Act, the DEQ represented the State’s legal interest at the public hearing before the EQC. As stated in Antelope Valley, an administrative agency such as DEQ, acting in its regulatory or rulemaking capacity is a proper respondent to a district court appeal.
Joinder of EQC: Having concluded that the DEQ was a proper party to the appeal, it was not necessary for the Court to consider Petitioners’ argument that if DEQ was not a proper party they should have been allowed to join the EQC. The Intervenors contended that the joinder would not have been proper whether or not DEQ was a necessary party because by the time the issue was raised, the thirty day time limit imposed by W.R.A.P. 12.04(a) had passed. The Court concluded that the district court could have admitted the EQC as a party after the time for filing the petition for review had passed because there is nothing to suggest otherwise in either the statutes governing administrative actions or the rules governing judicial review of administrative action. Rule 19 requires joinder of all parties having a real interest in a proceeding. Rule 20 allows joinder of defendants against whom a right to relief is asserted and if questions of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Rule 21 allows a district court to drop or add parties at any stage of an action and on such terms as are just.

Conclusion: The EQC and the DEQ were both proper parties to the proceeding. The district court obtained jurisdiction when the petition naming the DEQ was filed. The district court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the EQC was not named in the petition.

Reversed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ylmbjr8 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]