Citizens Opposing Pollution v. Exxonmobil Coal U.S.A.
2012 IL 111286
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Monterey operated Mine No. 2 in Clinton County under Mining Act permits (Permits 57 and 183) for two coal refuse disposal areas (RDAs).
- Revisions to permits in 2004 incorporated a groundwater management zone and reclamation plan.
- IEPA compliance actions included a 1999 groundwater violation notice with a corrective-action plan and monitoring requirements.
- Langenhorst and others timely challenged the permit revisions via IDNR administrative appeals, but did not seek circuit-court review at that time.
- Plaintiff Citizens Opposing Pollution filed an 18-count then amended complaint in 2008 against Monterey, IEPA, and IDNR seeking various Mining Act and Water Use Act relief; the circuit court dismissed with prejudice, appellate court reversed in part, and this court granted leave.
- The issues center on whether 8.05(a) citizen suits can challenge permit terms or only nonpermitted activity, and whether the Water Use Act provides a private right of action for permit-mandated activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8.05(a) allows a citizen suit to challenge permit terms. | Langenhorst argues 8.05(a) enforces all Mining Act violations, including nonpermitted activity. | Monterey/IEPA contend 8.05(a) cannot attack approved permit terms; 8.10 governs judicial review. | 8.05(a) cannot attack permit terms; 8.10 governs review of final permit decisions. |
| Whether 8.10 precludes 8.05(a) actions for permitted activity and permits’ terms. | Plaintiff claims 8.10’s | 8.10 makes administrative review exclusive for permits; 8.05(a) can enforce nonpermitted activity. | 8.10’s first clause makes permit terms reviewable under Administrative Review Law; 8.05(a) may enforce nonpermitted activity or remediable actions but not challenge permit terms. |
| Whether Water Use Act provides a private right of action for permit-mandated groundwater withdrawals. | Count VI seeks to enforce reasonable-use limits via Water Use Act. | Water Use Act does not create a private right to challenge permit-mandated activity. | Water Use Act does not authorize a private right of action for permit-mandated activity. |
| Whether expired permits still bind reclamation obligations and permit terms. | Expired permits may still bind reclamation obligations. | Obligations continue after expiration; no new basis to challenge terms. | Obligations continue; expiration does not revive Section 8.05(a) challenges to permit terms. |
| Whether IDNR/administrative review Process bars res judicata/collateral estoppel defenses here. | Administrative appeals do not bar this suit as Monterey was not a party. | Res judicata/collateral estoppel apply to some claims. | Res judicata/collateral estoppel defenses not reached due to 8.05(a) dismissal of permit-term challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill. 2d 53 (Ill. 1995) (constitutional environmental rights require cognizable causes of action)
- Old Ben Coal Co. v. Department of Mines & Minerals, 207 Ill. App. 3d 1088 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (interim-permit regulations do not exempt from permanent standards)
- Bridgman v. Sanitary District of Decatur, 164 Ill. App. 3d 287 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (statutory private rights under Water Use Act guidance ignored for environmental actions)
- Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (Ill. 2004) (private rights implied if statute’s purpose and remedy support enforcement)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (example of enforceability factors for nuisance-style claims)