Fowler Land Co. v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources
460 S.W.3d 502
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- AFI held Permit No. 1991-02 to mine land that included parcels owned by Fowler Land Company and the Margaret Leist Revocable Trust; owners had leased their land for mining.
- The Original Permit authorized a specific reclamation plan, including a single 11-acre water impoundment on Fowler’s land and a small (≈0.5 acre) impoundment on Leist’s land; the owners consented to those authorized impoundments during the original permitting.
- AFI later constructed six unauthorized water impoundments on the owners’ lands (totaling ~15.4 acres on Fowler and ~5.7 acres on Leist), without the owners’ consent; Program enforcement actions followed.
- AFI’s 1995 permit revision requesting approval of the existing impoundments was denied by the Program for lack of landowner consent; that denial was not appealed. AFI filed a second revision in 2011 seeking approval of the same impoundments.
- The Program director approved the 2011 revision, finding compliance with consultation rules; the Commission upheld that approval but relied on 10 CSR § 40-3.130(3) (consultation/alternative postmining uses) and did not address 10 CSR § 40-6.060(4)(E).5 (landowner consent for creation of water bodies on prime-farmland permits).
- The trial court affirmed the Commission; the appellate court reversed, holding that 10 CSR § 40-6.060(4)(E).5 plainly required consent of affected property owners for the creation of the water bodies and the Commission erred by ignoring that rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the creation of the six water impoundments required the consent of all affected property owners under 10 CSR § 40-6.060(4)(E).5 | Property owners: the rule plainly requires regulatory approval and the consent of all affected property owners for creation of water bodies within the permit area; they never consented to these impoundments. | Program/AFI: landowner consultation under 10 CSR § 40-3.130(3) suffices; consent is not required for permit revisions approving these impoundments. | Court: Consent was required; Commission erred by ignoring § 40-6.060(4)(E).5 and approving the revision without owners’ consent. |
| Whether reliance on 10 CSR § 40-3.130(3) displaced the specific consent requirement in § 40-6.060(4)(E).5 | Property owners: § 40-3.130(3) addresses consultation for alternative uses and does not supersede or eliminate § 40-6.060’s special prime-farmland consent requirement. | Program/AFI: consultation under § 40-3.130(3) satisfied procedural obligations; no further consent required. | Court: § 40-3.130(3) does not negate § 40-6.060(4)(E).5; both apply where prime farmland is involved, and the specific consent rule controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs., 226 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. banc 2007) (appellate review looks to agency decision on questions of law de novo)
- Stone v. Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs., 350 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. banc 2011) (standards for reviewing agency legal questions)
- State ex rel. Stewart v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of St. Louis, 120 S.W.3d 279 (Mo.App.2003) (agency bound to follow its own rules)
- State ex rel. Martin-Erb v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 77 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. banc 2002) (agency cannot violate procedures it promulgates)
- Natural Res., Inc. v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 107 S.W.3d 451 (Mo.App.2003) (use of ordinary dictionary meaning when regulation lacks a definition)
- Erskine v. Dir. of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 789 (Mo.App.2014) (failure to file a respondent brief does not preclude adjudication)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Alternate Fuels, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.App.2005) (discussing enforcement process under the Surface Coal Mining Law)