Town of Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Department
458 Mass. 596
| Mass. | 2010Background
- Town of Boxford sues Commonwealth entities over highway dept. salt shed contaminating private wells.
- Town regulators (Board of Health) alleged authority to regulate salt shed under G. L. c. Ill, §§ 31, 122 and Code § 202-3.
- Highway dept. refused to relocate, drilled replacement wells; DEP declined enforcement actions under G. L. c. 85, § 7A.
- Town sought injunctions (salt shed cessation, environmental protection) and permits, plus mandamus against DEP.
- Commonwealth moved to dismiss claiming sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim; judge denied with respect to counts I–III, but later count IV distinguished.
- Court addresses whether local regulation can bind a State agency and whether mandamus against DEP is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars enforcement against the highway dept. under the town regs. | Boxford argues regs under G. L. c. Ill, §§ 31, 122 apply to the highway dept. | Commonwealth contends immunity prevents regulation and enforcement actions. | Immunity does not bar enforcement; counts I and III survive. |
| Whether the town may seek injunctive relief under G. L. c. 214, § 7A for environmental damage. | Town asserts § 7A allows injunction against impairment of environment by the highway dept. | Commonwealth maintains no statutory violation or injury sufficient for § 7A relief. | Count II survives and may warrant injunctive relief; environment injury claim valid. |
| Whether mandamus against DEP is appropriate for enforcing § 7A or other statutes. | Town seeks mandamus to compel DEP enforcement action. | DEP actions are discretionary; mandamus not available for discretionary acts. | Count IV must be dismissed; mandamus not appropriate for discretionary agency acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (Mass. 2008) (pleading sufficiency; raising relief above speculative level)
- Somerville, 451 Mass. 80 (Mass. 2008) (local regulation of state agencies must have only negligible effect)
- Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. North Andover, 439 Mass. 16 (Mass. 2003) (essential governmental function; local regulation impact test)
- Woburn v. Sousa, 338 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1959) (equitable enforcement of nuisance regulations under c. 111)
- Kent v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 312 (Mass. 2002) (interlocutory review under present execution doctrine)
- Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 457 Mass. 663 (Mass. 2010) (claims raised for first time in reply brief deemed waived)
- Wellfleet v. Glaze, 403 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1988) (statutory interpretation of environmental injunctive relief)
- Channel Fish Co. v. Boston Fish Market Corp., 359 Mass. 185 (Mass. 1971) (mandamus standards; ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- Angelico v. Commissioner of Ins., 357 Mass. 407 (Mass. 1970) (mandamus when legal duty exists and can be enforced)
- Sierra Club v. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Envtl. Mgt., 439 Mass. 738 (Mass. 2003) (environmental regulation and injunctive relief considerations)