900 N.W.2d 283
S.D.2017Background
- LAC Mineral USA sought Board approval in 2014 concerning release of reclamation obligations, postclosure plan/financial assurance, retention of roads/buildings, and an extension of reclamation period for the Richmond Hill Mine previously permitted in 1988.
- Harlan Schmidt (and Robert Fowler) intervened, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because LAC failed to consult/notify Fowler as required by SDCL chapter 45-6B and that certain requests constituted a permit amendment requiring a fee.
- The hearing chair found the Board had jurisdiction and concluded Fowler was not a “landowner” under SDCL 45-6B-44; LAC then withdrew reclamation-specific requests before the full Board hearing.
- The Board adopted the hearing chair’s decision; Fowler and Schmidt appealed to circuit court, which affirmed jurisdiction, ruled Fowler not a landowner, and held Fowler/Schmidt waived due process arguments by not appearing at the Board hearing.
- On appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, the Court addressed whether the Board had subject matter jurisdiction, whether certain issues were preserved or moot, and whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying supplementation of the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board had subject-matter jurisdiction over LAC’s petition | Board lacked jurisdiction because LAC failed to provide required consultation/notice and pay amendment fee | Statutory permit/application requirements are non-jurisdictional; Board has statutory authority over mining matters | Held: Board had subject-matter jurisdiction; application/formal requirements are not jurisdictional |
| Whether Fowler is a “landowner” entitled to consultation/notice under SDCL 45-6B-44/45 | Fowler should be treated as landowner; consultation/notice required | Board/ LAC argued reclamation issues were withdrawn and statutes not applicable here | Held: Reversed Board and circuit court determinations that Fowler is not a landowner because the issue was not properly before them; Court declined to decide landowner meaning on undeveloped record |
| Whether Fowler was denied due process for lack of consultation/notice | Denial of statutory consultation/notice deprived Fowler of due process | (DENR/LAC) Issues not presented at administrative hearing, and statutes at issue do not apply to withdrawn matters | Held: Waived—Fowler/Schmidt failed to preserve due process argument; Court declined to reach merits |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion by refusing to supplement administrative record | Additional documents (district judgment, notice to DENR, deposition) should be added and considered | Trial court correctly applied SDCL 1-26-34; appellants did not show materiality or good cause to present at agency first | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed (but striking of the district court judgment was harmless error) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Koch Expl. Co., 387 N.W.2d 530 (S.D. 1986) (standard for reviewing agency records and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Fowler v. LAC Minerals (USA), LLC, 694 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2012) (background federal case addressing Fowler’s reversionary interest in property)
- In re State of S.D. Water Mgmt. Bd. Approving Water Permit No. 1791-2, 351 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 1984) (administrative waiver and preservation principles)
- Wendell v. S.D. Dep’t of Transp., 587 N.W.2d 595 (S.D. 1998) (questions of law reviewed de novo)