Jefferson County v. Department of Environmental Quality
264 P.3d 715
Mont.2011Background
- NorthWestern proposed the Mountain States Transmission Intertie (MSTI) and DEQ and the BLM would lead environmental review under MFSA and MEPA, with DEQ deciding the route and whether to issue a permit.
- Jefferson County Commission attended scoping meetings, provided comments urging minimal private-property impact and preference for a route with fewer homes affected.
- DEQ obtained Jefferson County land use plans to ensure MSTI route compliance with local planning considerations during EIS preparation.
- In April 2010 Jefferson County invoked its coordination authority and sought broader MEPA/ MFSA-related consultation.
- Jefferson County petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking DEQ to consult before issuing a Draft EIS; the District Court granted relief enjoining release of the Draft EIS.
- On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding there was no clear legal duty to consult that would support mandamus, and that the action was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DEQ had a clear legal duty to consult before issuing a Draft EIS | Jefferson County argues DEQ must consult under §75-1-201(1)(c), MCA. | DEQ contends the duty is discretionary and not ministerial, and MEPA does not specify how to consult. | No clear ministerial duty to consult pre-Draft EIS |
| Whether Jefferson County's action is premature | County seeks mandamus to force consultation and participation in EIS planning. | Action is premature because MEPA/MFSA remedies apply after final agency action, and no final decision has occurred. | Action premature; not ripe for mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A Family, 184 Mont. 145, 602 P.2d 157 (1979) (distinguishes mandamus from mandatory injunction; discusses clear legal duty)
- Best v. Police Dept. of Billings, 2000 MT 97, 299 Mont. 247, 999 P.2d 334 (Mont. 2000) (mandamus requires a ministerial duty with no discretion)
- Smith v. County of Missoula, 1999 MT 330, 297 Mont. 368, 992 P.2d 834 (Mont. 1999) (mandamus review and discretion standards)
- Cal. Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. DOE, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency must engage in reasonable consultation; not mere notice)
- In re A Family, 184 Mont. 145, 602 P.2d 157 (1979) (reiterates role of MEPA/MFSA in administrative actions)
- State ex rel. Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Toole, 26 Mont. 22, 66 P. 496 (1901) (mandamus standards and ministerial duty concept)