Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Turner
324 Ga. App. 762
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Property owner Lance Toland constructed a ~170-foot bulkhead within the 25-foot buffer of a salt-water marsh, allegedly without a required variance under Georgia’s Erosion and Sedimentation Act (OCGA § 12-7-1 et seq.).
- EPD investigated, negotiated a consent order with Toland resolving alleged violations; the Center for a Sustainable Coast (the Center) petitioned to challenge the consent order.
- The ALJ found the Center had standing (injury in fact and zone-of-interests) based on member testimony and expert evidence about ecological and recreational harms, but did not analyze redressability.
- The superior court affirmed the ALJ; EPD appealed the ALJ’s standing ruling, and the Center cross-appealed the merits of the consent order.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the Center lacked standing because it failed to show redressability — vacating the superior court’s affirmance and dismissing the Center’s appeal on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — injury in fact | Center: members use/ value the marsh; bulkhead harms recreational & aesthetic interests | EPD: alleged harms are speculative or not cognizable | ALJ found injury in fact; Court of Appeals accepted injury-in-fact findings but focused on redressability |
| Standing — zone of interests | Center: its purposes and members’ interests fall within protections of the Act | EPD: Center’s interests are not the sort the Act protects in this enforcement context | ALJ found Center’s interests within the zone; Court did not disturb that factual finding |
| Standing — redressability | Center: vacating/invalidating consent order would remedy harms (restore buffer) | EPD: vacatur of the consent order would not remove bulkhead/fill; ALJ lacks authority to compel specific removal terms; relief speculative | Court held redressability not shown — vacating the consent order would likely leave the bulkhead and fill in place and ALJ cannot force specific removal provisions; lack of redressability defeats standing |
| Authority to order relief | Center sought order requiring removal and restoration | EPD: director has discretionary enforcement authority; ALJ cannot compel specific terms in consent orders | Court reiterated ALJ lacks authority to require specific consent-order provisions and director has discretion under OCGA § 12-7-12(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (associational standing and redressability standards)
- Florida Wildlife Federation v. South Florida Water Management District, 647 F.3d 1296 (redressability and that vacatur may not remedy on-the-ground conditions)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (difficulty of establishing standing when plaintiff is not the object of the challenged action)
- Scanlon v. State Bar of Ga., 264 Ga. 251 (no judicially cognizable interest in prosecution/nonprosecution policies)
- Bland Farms v. Ga. Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Ga. 192 (agency enforcement discretion and limits on mandamus to compel enforcement)
- Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee v. Center for a Sustainable Coast, 286 Ga. App. 518 (standard of review for ALJ fact findings)