Ann Calfee v. Tennessee Department Of Transportation
M2016-01902-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- TDOT initially denied, then approved, a Use and Occupancy Permit allowing two pipelines along state highways to withdraw and discharge water between the Nolichucky River and an industrial facility; the Industrial Development Board applied and US Nitrogen would operate the lines.
- Six downstream and abutting landowners sued after administrative remedies (petition for declaratory order deemed denied) seeking declaratory judgment and injunction under the APA, alleging TDOT exceeded authority by permitting non-utilities and that pipelines encroached on private land and would harm riparian uses.
- Bible and Renner allege the pipelines were installed on their farmland because TDOT issued the permit despite allegedly no highway right-of-way at those locations.
- Calfee and three other downstream owners allege the intake/discharge location (above an unusually shallow stretch) will withdraw ~1–2 million gallons/day and discharge industrial effluent, imminently harming recreation, riparian rights, irrigation, and property value.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of standing, finding plaintiffs lacked distinct/palpable injury, causal traceability, and redressability; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the three standing elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of abutting landowners to contest permit (trespass/encroachment) | Bible/Renner: permit caused pipelines to be placed on private land; this is a particularized, ongoing property injury entitling them to adjudication | TDOT/IDB/US Nitrogen: any trespass was caused by contractors, not the permit; injury too attenuated from permit | Held: Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged distinct/palpable injury, fairly traceable causation to TDOT permit, and plausible redressability — standing exists |
| Standing of downstream riparian owners to challenge permit (water withdrawal/discharge) | Calfee et al.: permit enabled locating intake/discharge above a shallow stretch; withdrawal/discharge will imminently impair riparian and recreational rights and property value | Defendants: harms speculative; other permits/means could produce same result so revoking TDOT permit won’t redress harm | Held: Allegations show imminent, particularized injuries fairly traceable to the permit and likely redressable by invalidating/enjoining its use |
| Proper procedural vehicle after agency inaction | Plaintiffs: APA §§ 4-5-223/225 permit declaratory judgment in chancery court after agency refusal/deemed denial | Defendants: argued other administrative remedies or that APA standing was lacking | Held: Plaintiffs followed APA procedure; having petitioned agency and received no order, they could seek declaratory judgment and have standing to do so |
| Redressability given alternative routes/permits | Plaintiffs: invalidating the TDOT right-of-way permit would likely force rerouting or different means, alleviating location-specific harms | Defendants: even without permit, water could be taken by other routes or means, leaving harms intact | Held: Court found revocation/enjoinment of permit likely to redress the alleged location-specific injuries and therefore redressability satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Gov’t of Nashville v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Nashville, 477 S.W.3d 750 (Tenn. 2015) (standing focuses on whether plaintiff has a sufficiently personal stake)
- City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. 2013) (articulates the three constitutional standing elements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union of Tenn. v. Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (standing inquiry determines entitlement to adjudication separate from merits)
- Knierim v. Leatherwood, 542 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn. 1976) (abutting landowner has private rights distinct from general public in highway context)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (declaratory judgment permissible to prevent threatened injury; present injury need not exist)