State Ex Rel. Voleck v. Village of Powhatan Point
127 Ohio St. 3d 299
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Volecks residents of Powhatan Point, Belmont County, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the village to provide visually clean and chemically pure water.
- Volecks alleged water was visually dirty, contained contaminants, and had a bad odor; village had reimbursed some water filters but problem persisted.
- EPA investigated a 2006 sediment complaint and ultimately found the water compliant with standards, taking no enforcement action.
- Belmont County Water Department testing in December 2007 showed iron/manganese levels at the tap main within federal standards, but higher levels inside the Volecks’ home, implicating the lateral line.
- Engineer Roxby, hired by Volecks (2007–2009), concluded water in the Volecks’ residence was visually dirty and contaminated, with iron/manganese above secondary standards, likely due to acid mine drainage affecting the well field.
- The court of appeals denied the mandamus writ; the present appeal argues the village’s duty arises from law and contract, seeking mandamus to override exclusive administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mandamus proper given available administrative remedies? | Volecks claim breach of public duty beyond ordinary remedies. | Administrative channels under R.C. 6109.11 and Chapter 3745 provide exclusive relief. | No; mandamus unavailable where adequate ordinary remedies exist. |
| Does the village have a legal duty to provide water superior to Safe Drinking Water Act standards? | Duty exists to provide water exceeding federal/state requirements. | No such heightened legal duty; standards set by law govern. | No; no elevated duty found. |
| Can mandamus rest on breach of contract or taking theories? | Breach of contract or taking could warrant mandamus. | R.C. 6109/3745 framework and contract remedies are separate; mandamus not available for taking without appropriation. | Not cognizable in mandamus; adequate contract or statutory remedies exist. |
| Do secondary drinking-water standards create a basis for mandamus? | Secondary standards beyond primary may impose duty to provide purer water. | Secondary standards are guidelines, not enforceable beyond primary standards. | Insufficient to create mandamus duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati ex rel. Crotty v. Cincinnati, 50 Ohio St.2d 27 (1977) (exclusive administrative channels govern challenge to director actions under environmental laws)
- State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96 (2009) (legislative duty creates mandamus basis; courts cannot create duties)
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002) (legislative-derived duties in mandamus context)
- State ex rel. N. Emps. Network Alliance, Inc. v. Ryan, 125 Ohio St.3d 11 (2010) (administrative remedy often precludes mandamus)
- State ex rel. Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 118 Ohio St.3d 131 (2008) (administrative remedy generally adequate)
- State ex rel. Glasstetter v. Rehab. Servs. Comm., 122 Ohio St.3d 432 (2009) (exclusive procedural avenues for environmental challenges)
- Lorain v. Stewart, 119 Ohio St.3d 222 (2008) (exclusive remedies preclude mandamus when bypassed)
- Montrie Nursing Home, Inc. v. Aggrey, 54 Ohio St.2d 394 (1975) (mandamus vs. legislative remedies for public duties)