Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee v. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc.
315 Ga. App. 510
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee issued a permit allowing MID-ROC to build and maintain a moveable dock over marshlands along the South Newport River for a proposed subdivision after three Committee meetings and a revised dock design.
- Altamaha Riverkeeper and nearby landowners challenged the permit and sought review before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- The ALJ conducted three days of hearings over three months, then issued a detailed 17-page de novo decision affirming the Committee’s permit and rejecting Riverkeeper’s burden-shifting argument.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the ALJ erred by not considering whether the Committee’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, and applying a standard inconsistent with state law.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court, holding the ALJ must independently determine whether the permit violated the Marsh Act, and affirm the ALJ’s decision; the issue is whether the permit was wrongfully issued, not whether the Committee’s decision was ultimately correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for ALJ decision | Riverkeeper: ALJ must evaluate sufficiency of evidence; burden shifts to challenger | Committee/Oversight: burden rests with challenger? | ALJ must independently determine; standard is de novo with any evidence; reversal of Superior Court warranted. |
| Meaning of 'wrongfully issued' in the Marsh Act | Riverkeeper must show the permit was wrongfully issued due to lack of information or failure to meet standards | Committee’s decision supported by evidence and public interest findings | 'Wrongfully issued' means ALJ/Department decision contrary to Committee’s findings; not merely lack of prior data. |
| Role of evidence before ALJ vs. evidence before Committee | Riverkeeper may show lack of evidence before Committee to prove wrongfulness | ALJ conducts independent de novo review based on hearing record | ALJ’s findings based on any evidence; Superior Court erred in evaluating only Committee’s record. |
| Effect of post-permit data-gathering condition | Additional data requirement indicates prior data were insufficient | Post-permit monitoring does not prove prior insufficiency to issue permit | Data collection after issuance does not prove lack of pre-permit information; not dispositive. |
| Standard of review for public-interest finding | Burden is on challengers to prove permit violates public interest | ALJ may determine public-interest compliance; de novo review | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies to public-interest determinations; not a simple sufficiency review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee v. Center for a Sustainable Coast, 286 Ga.App. 518 (2007) (de novo review and independent determination by ALJ; burden shifting discussed)
- Hughey v. Gwinnett County, 278 Ga. 740 (2004) (burden on challenger to show permit was wrongfully issued; standard applied to ALJ review)
- Longleaf Energy Assoc. v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, 298 Ga.App. 753 (2009) (ALJ review is de novo; burden shifting context in permit challenges)
- Gwinnett County v. Lake Lanier Assoc., 265 Ga.App. 214 (2004) (trial court erred by shifting burden to agency to demonstrate compliance with statute)