Living Rivers v. U.S. Oil Sands, Inc., 2014 UT 25

Living Rivers challenged the Utah Board of Water Quality's BWQ reaffirmation of a 2008 discharge permit-by-rule for US Oil Sands' Uintah Basin tar sands project.
The 2008 permit-by-rule was final because it was not timely appealed within 30 days, rendering it immune from collateral attack.
In 2011, US Oil Sands submitted changes; the Secretary again reviewed and reaffirmed the permit-by-rule based on de minimis groundwater effects.
Living Rivers intervened in 2011, seeking administrative review to strip the permit-by-rule and require full regulatory permitting.
The Utah Court of Appeals certified the petition for Supreme Court review; the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the petition for review	Living Rivers sought review of 2008/2011 decisions.	Petition was untimely under 63G-4-301(1)(a) and 317-9-2(2).	Petition dismissed as untimely.
Whether the petition challenged the 2008 permit-by-rule on merits	Challenges 2008 and its de minimis/groundwater definitions.	Challenges concern merits of 2008 decision; barred by finality.	Petition untimely because it targeted the 2008 decision.
Whether mootness or issue preclusion foreclose review	Living Rivers argued issues precluded by prior litigation.	Mootness and collateral estoppel argued; threshold merits issue.	Court declined to decide mootness/issue preclusion; dismissed on timeliness.

Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, 285 P.3d 1157 (Utah Supreme Court 2012) (elements of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel))
Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, 289 P.3d 582 (Utah Supreme Court 2012) (finality and limits on administrative review)
Perez v. S. Jordan City, 296 P.3d 715 (Utah Supreme Court 2013) (timeliness as jurisdictional requirement)
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 999 P.2d 17 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (timeliness and finality principles in agency appeals)