Meic v. Deq
2016 MT 9
Mont.2016Background
- Golden Sunlight Mines (GSM) sought DEQ approval (2013-14) to expand its open-pit gold mine to a 49.4-acre North Area Pit, excavating below the water table and using dewatering wells.
- DEQ evaluated four reclamation alternatives in an EIS: No Action, GSM Proposed, Agency-Modified (DEQ preferred), and Backfill (full backfill of the pit).
- DEQ selected the Agency-Modified Alternative because it allowed an in‑pit sump plus other mitigation measures, which DEQ found provided better assurance against groundwater contamination than the Backfill Alternative.
- MEIC sued, arguing Article IX, § 2 of the Montana Constitution and the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act (MMRA) require “full reclamation” (backfilling) and that DEQ’s selection was arbitrary and capricious under MMRA criteria.
- Defendants (DEQ and GSM) invoked collateral estoppel based on a prior Fifth Judicial District decision (MEIC I) rejecting MEIC’s constitutional and related statutory challenge to reclamation standards for a different pit; the district court granted summary judgment for DEQ/GSM.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEIC is precluded from relitigating whether Article IX, § 2 requires full restoration of disturbed land | MEIC: Constitution requires DEQ to choose the most effective reclamation (i.e., full reclamation/backfill) | DEQ/GSM: MEIC is collaterally estopped by prior District Court decision (MEIC I) that rejected full-restoration requirement | Held: Precluded. Issue preclusion applies — MEIC I squarely decided the constitutional standard and MEIC could have appealed but did not |
| Whether MEIC is precluded from relitigating whether MMRA requires full reclamation | MEIC: MMRA must be interpreted to require the most effective (full) reclamation consistent with Article IX, § 2 | DEQ/GSM: Same collateral estoppel; statutory claim is intertwined with the constitutional one | Held: Precluded. Statutory argument barred either because it was decided or because it is intertwined with the precluded constitutional issue |
| Whether DEQ’s selection of the Agency‑Modified Alternative satisfied MMRA criteria (structural stability, utility, visual mitigation, prevent offsite impacts) | MEIC: Agency‑Modified Alternative is unsupported by evidence and arbitrary; Backfill is superior in stability, habitat, aesthetics | DEQ/GSM: DEQ analyzed the criteria, required mitigation (sump, monitoring, revegetation), and reasonably concluded Agency‑Modified better assures against offsite groundwater contamination | Held: DEQ’s decision upheld. Agency considered relevant factors and substantial evidence supports choice; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Standard of review for agency decision and preclusion determination | MEIC: (implicit) errors of law/fact should be reviewed; seeks reversal | DEQ/GSM: Court should apply de novo review to summary judgment and preclusion; substantial-evidence/AR/CAP review to agency decision | Held: Applied de novo review for preclusion/summary judgment; applied substantial evidence/AR/CAP (narrow) review to agency decision and found it reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Stauffer Chem. Co. v. EPA, 464 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1984) (issue preclusion applies to identical legal issues despite factual differences between incidents)
- Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 246 Mont. 398 (Mont. 1990) (relitigation of identical constitutional tax challenge across different years is precluded)
- Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51 (Mont. 2006) (doctrine and purposes of issue preclusion explained)
- McDaniel v. State, 2009 MT 159 (Mont. 2009) (preclusive effect extends to all questions essential to prior judgment)
- Clark Fork Coalition v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 2008 MT 407 (Mont. 2008) (standard for reviewing agency decisions: arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or unsupported by substantial evidence)