This appeal arises out of the State Water Control Board’s (Board) issuance of a Virginia Water Protection Permit to TriCity Properties (Tri-City) that would allow Tri-City to develop a residential and commercial development immediately adjacent to the public Stumpy Lake Nature Preserve. Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and Citizens for Stumpy Lake (CFSL), appellants, timely appealed the Board’s issuance of this permit to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. The Commonwealth, on behalf of the Board and Department of Environmental Quality, along with Tri-City, filed demurrers, arguing that CBF and CFSL lacked standing to bring the appeal. The court sustained the demurrers, holding that Virginia does not recognize representational standing and that CBF and CFSL lacked standing in their own right to bring the appeal.
CBF and CFSL appealed to this Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Because the circuit court decided the matters upon demurrer, we shall recite the facts alleged, and all reasonable inferences flowing from those facts, as though they are true, in accordance with settled principles of appellate review.
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth,
*108 CBF is a non-profit organization founded in 1966 under the laws of Maryland to restore and sustain the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. CBF has approximately 40,000 members in Virginia.
CFSL is a non-profit association founded in 1998 and is comprised of residents of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Norfolk in the areas surrounding and in close proximity to Stumpy Lake and the Stumpy Lake Nature Preserve in Virginia Beach. Concerned citizens formed CFSL when Transamerica Services, Inc., and others, were attempting to purchase Stumpy Lake and its surrounding lands for development. The original goal of CFSL was to preserve Stumpy Lake from development.
Roy Hoagland, Virginia Executive Director of CBF, stated in an affidavit that CBF conducts a Clean the Bay Day in Virginia Beach and in the City of Chesapeake. Clean the Bay Day is a trash clean-up project in which thousands of CBF members and volunteers remove trash from streams, rivers, parks, and other areas. Stumpy Lake is a Clean the Bay Day site. Hoagland alleged that the proposed issuance of this permit and the subsequent development by Tri-City would impact CBF’s ability to successfully conduct the Clean the Bay Day program. Hoagland further averred that CBF maintains an Environmental Education Program (EEP) and “each year takes over 36,000 people out in canoes and workboats that serve as floating classrooms for Chesapeake Bay.” Included in the EEP are oyster restoration activities in the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth Rivers. Students and adults pay a fee for participating in EEP, and CBF relies on receipt of those payments “as part of its economic viability.”
William Pratt, President of Citizens for Stumpy Lake, stated in his affidavit that CFSL members enjoy the “multitude of wildlife Stumpy Lake hosts.” He, along with other members, walks its shoreline, enjoys its pristine qualities and plans to enjoy the Preserve in the future. Stumpy Lake provides an essential function in flood prevention.
*109 Additionally, appellants filed two affidavits from members of the CBF and two affidavits from the CFSL. 1 One member of CBF visits the Stumpy Lake area at least once a year. She enjoys walking and bird watching. Another CBF member also enjoys bird watching and hiking in the Stumpy Lake area and visits at least twice a year.
One member of CFSL frequently enjoys the recreational uses and wildlife at Stumpy Lake. He has been a member of the Stumpy Lake Golf Course for thirty years and plays an average of twice a week. He enjoys the peaceful atmosphere and clean air of the Stumpy Lake area. Another CFSL member also enjoys the natural beauty of the Stumpy Lake area and spends time viewing the wildlife, which includes turtles, deer, fox, and bald eagles.
The trial court held that the plain language of Code § 62.1-44.29 does not confer representational standing to either appellant. In finding that neither appellant is “aggrieved,” the court cited from
Pearsall v. Virginia Racing Commission,
*110 The Association neither owns nor occupies any real property. No personal or property right of the Association was adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission did not order the Association to act or to refrain from acting. Nothing in the record suggests that the Association holds any right that will be affected by the outcome of this case. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the Association was not a “person aggrieved” under the statute.
The trial court further found that neither CBF nor CFSL could maintain the appeal in its own right. The court, quoting
State Water Control Board v. Crutchfield,
[I]f all that is required to establish standing is use of the waterway or surrounding area in question, Crutchfield’s observation that the Article III “injury in fact” requirement “precludes a plaintiff from alleging a generalized grievance to vindicate an interest shared by the entire public” is meaningless since there are few people who do not have at least some aesthetic or recreational interest in the environment. The court believes that more is required than what appellants have shown here. They do not have standing.
This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Demurrer
A demurrer admits the truth of all facts alleged in a motion for judgment but does not admit the correctness of the pleader’s conclusions of law.
Blake Constr. Co. v. Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth.,
B. Representational Standing
Appellants first contend that the trial court erred in holding that the plain language of Code § 62.1-44.29 did not confer representational standing to appellants. The court reasoned that neither CBF nor CFSL were “aggrieved” under Virginia standards.
The State Water Control Law’s (SWCL) judicial review provision provides:
Any owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process related to, a final decision of the Board under §§ 62.1-44.15(5), 62.1-44.15(8a), (8b), and (8c), 62.1-44.15:5, 62.1-44.16, 62.1-14.17, 62.1-44.19 or § 62.1-44.25, whether such decision is affirmative or negative, is entitled to judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.) if such person meets the standard for obtaining judicial review of a case or controversy pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. A person shall be deemed to meet such standard if (i) such person has suffered an actual or imminent injury which is an invasion of a legally protected interest and which is concrete and particularized; (ii) such injury is fairly traceable to the decision of the Board and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (in) such injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision by the court.
Code § 62.1-44.29.
Prior to 1996, the only party who could appeal the issuance of a permit pursuant to this statute was an owner aggrieved by the Board’s decision. When the General Assembly added *112 the Article III language to Code § 62.1-44.29 in 1996, the legislature broadened the allowance for judicial review from the narrow “owner aggrieved” standard to the more encompassing “case-or-controversy” requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution. Appellants argue that under this Article III analysis, the statute automatically and implicitly confers standing to an organization in a representational capacity. Contending that is not the case, appellees respond that Virginia recognizes representational standing only when specifically authorized by statute, which is not the case here.
The constitutional Article III requirements are set out in
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
Federal courts have long recognized representational standing. In
Sierra Club v. Morton,
The trend of cases arising under the APA and other statutes authorizing judicial review of federal agency action has been toward recognizing that injuries other than economic harm are sufficient to bring a person within the meaning of the statutory language, and toward discarding the notion that an injury that is widely shared is ipso facto not an injury sufficient to provide the basis for judicial review. We *113 noted this development with approval in Data Processing [v. Camp], 397 U.S. [150], at 154, 90 S.Ct. [827], at 830, [25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)], in saying that the interest alleged to have been injured “may reflect ‘aesthetic, conservational, and recreational’ as well as economic values.” But broadening the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury.
Some courts have indicated a willingness to take this latter step by conferring standing upon organizations that have demonstrated “an organizational interest in the problem” of environmental or consumer protection. It is clear that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members in a proceeding for judicial review.
Id.
at 738-39,
In
Warth v. Seldin,
Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members. The possibility of such representational standing, however, does not eliminate or attenuate the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justifiable case had the members themselves brought suit. So long as this can be established, and so long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
(Citations omitted).
In
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n,
This Court recognized representational standing in
Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County v. Department of Environmental Quality,
The statute under review here is identical, for purposes of standing, to the statute at issue in
Concerned Taxpayers.
As we stated in
Concerned Taxpayers,
Code § 62.1-44.29 merely reiterates the requirements set out in
Lujan.
Therefore, fulfillment of the tests set forth in
Lujan
and
Hunt
results in satisfaction of the standing requirement under Code § 62.1-44.29.
See Concerned Taxpayers,
Appellees argue that Pearsall controls because Pearsall can be interpreted as holding that Virginia does not recognize representational standing unless authorized by statute.
In
Pearsall,
the Monument Avenue Park Association, along with Pearsall, challenged a decision by the Virginia Racing Commission to grant a license to operate an off-track betting parlor near Pearsall’s and other Association’s members’ homes. The trial court held that the Association did not have standing to pursue the appeal and that neither Pearsall nor the Association was a “person aggrieved.”
The appeal in Pearsall was governed by Code § 59.1-373, which provides for a “person aggrieved” analysis. The judicial review provision under scrutiny in Pearsall does not include the broad Article III standing, and therefore the review of that statute is immaterial to the review of the statute at issue here. Additionally, Pearsall did not involve the SWCL or environmental issues. Thus, Pearsall does not control resolution of the issues presented by this appeal.
That said, the first prong of the test for associational standing requires that members of the association have standing to sue in their own right.
See Hunt,
The
Lujan
test first requires that the injury be “concrete and particularized” and “imminent,” not “hypothetical.”
Lujan,
A plaintiff must show that the alleged injury will affect him in a personal and individual manner.
Lujan,
In
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.,
the Supreme Court found that the relevant showing for purposes of Article III standing is not injury to the environment, but injury to the plaintiff.
*118
One FOE member averred in affidavits that he used to swim, fish, camp, and picnic near the river. He could no longer engage in these activities because of the smell of pollution. Other FOE and CLEAN members attested that they no longer enjoyed the river because of the fear that the water contained harmful pollutants. The Supreme Court found that “the affidavits and testimony presented by FOE in this case assert that Laidlaw’s discharges, and the affiant members’ reasonable concerns about the effects of those discharges, directly affected those affiants’ recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests.”
Id.
at 183-84,
The trial court here held that “[t]he plain language of the statute shows that standing to seek judicial review of a decision of the Board is not conferred on persons in a representative capacity.” In so doing, the trial court never addressed whether appellants alleged sufficient injury to confer standing on a member of the CBF or CFSL in a personal and individual manner. Having found that Virginia recognizes representational standing pursuant to Concerned Taxpayers and that Code § 62.1-44.29 confers this representational standing, we remand for the trial court to determine whether appellants alleged sufficient facts to allow for judicial review pursuant to Code § 62.1-44.29.
C. Standing To Sue In Its Own Right
Appellants next contend they have standing to sue in their own right. Appellees respond that neither CBF nor CFSL has shown sufficient injury to the organizations to establish standing. The trial court determined that because neither CBF nor CFSL owns real or personal property that will be adversely affected by the Board’s decision, neither could maintain an appeal in its own right. The court discussed Crutchfield and found that “injury in fact” means more that just a generalized grievance shared by the entire public *119 because “there are few people who do not have at least some aesthetic or recreational interest in the environment.”
The SWCL provides that an aggrieved owner, or any person who has participated, either in person or by the submission of written comments, in the public comment process related to a final decision of the Board under Code § 62.1-44.15(5) is entitled to judicial review of that decision “if such person meets the standard for obtaining judicial review of a case or controversy pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution.” Code § 62.1-44.29.
Appellant CBF contends it has standing to challenge the Board’s grant of a permit to Tri-City because CBF conducts a Clean the Bay Day and this activity confers standing. CBF asserts, “CBF has a significant financial interest in Clean the Bay Day including but not limited to a dedicated staff person, promotional materials, and contractual relationships with local governments and local civic organizations.” CBF also conducts EEPs within the Bay and relies on income generated from these programs for its economic viability.
In W.&
Carnes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors,
A plaintiff has standing to institute a ... proceeding if it has a “justiciable interest” in the subject matter of the proceeding, either in its own right or in a representative capacity. Henrico County v. F. & W., Inc.,222 Va. 218 , 223,278 S.E.2d 859 , 862 (1981); Lynchburg Traffic Bureau v. Norfolk and Western Railway,207 Va. 107 , 108,147 S.E.2d 744 , 745 (1966). In order to have a “justiciable interest” in a proceeding, the plaintiff must demonstrate an actual controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, *120 such that his rights will be affected by the outcome of the case. See Code § 8.01-184; Cupp v. Board of Supervisors,227 Va. 580 , 589,318 S.E.2d 407 , 411 (1984).
Id.
at 383,
While appellant cites Clean the Bay Day as injury in fact to the CBF, we find that appellant fails to allege how the issuance of the permit to Tri-City will impact this program. Paragraph 4 of Hoagland’s affidavit alleges that Stumpy Lake is a Clean the Bay Day site and that “CBF has a significant financial interest in Clean the Bay Day.” However, the affidavit does not allege facts to sufficiently support this conclusion.
It is well settled that while a demurrer admits as true all averments of material facts which are sufficiently pleaded, it does not admit the correctness of the conclusions of law stated by the pleader. Nor does a demurrer admit “inferences or conclusions from facts not stated.”
Arlington Yellow Cab v. Transportation, Inc.,
Additionally, allegations contained in paragraph 11 reference CBF’s ability to conduct the Clean the Bay Day. “The destruction of protected wetlands in that area will ... diminish the members [sic] and volunteers’ enjoyment of the areas’ natural resources during their clean up efforts.” Indeed, CBF relies upon the purported injury to others resulting from the Board’s issuance of the permit to Tri-City. We therefore conclude that the allegations contained therein pertain, at best, to injury to the members themselves, and not to the association.
See Carnes,
CBF has also alleged that it maintains an EEP that educates people, for a fee, about the Chesapeake Bay, including oyster restoration activities in the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth Rivers. While we acknowledge that CBF alleges that the association depends on the fees generated by the EEP for “part of its economic viability,” CBF fails to demonstrate how the proposed development will affect the EEP. Again, because we cannot determine from the affidavits what impact, if any, the issuance of the permit would have on the CBF, we find that CBF has not demonstrated standing in their own right to maintain suit against appellees. 4
Appellant CFSL also maintains it has standing to sue in its own right. Appellant alleges that CFSL was formed to prevent Virginia Beach from rezoning the property from preservation to residential uses. If this permit is allowed to stand, claims CFSL, then the existence of the association will be threatened. “If there is no Stumpy Lake as its members know it, there is no Citizens for Stumpy Lake.” While appellant’s allegations, taken as true, indicate that they advocate for environmental concerns, we find that CFSL fails to allege any facts that provide a nexus between the issuance of the permit and a threat to CFSL’s existence.
William Pratt, president of CFSL, alleged that CFSL was formed in 1998 with the goal of preventing the City of Virginia Beach from rezoning the property from preservation to residential uses and to prevent the City of Chesapeake from *122 rezoning its surrounding areas adjacent to Stumpy Lake from agricultural to residential uses. CFSL’s efforts to preserve Stumpy Lake have been extensive, including distribution of pamphlets, demonstrations, and extensive communication with local government and civic organizations. It is apparent from the allegations presented in the petition and affidavits that the purpose and goal of CFSL is to preserve the Stumpy Lake area from present and future development and destruction.
CFSL argues that standing is conferred simply on the basis of promoting the goal of preserving Stumpy Lake. However, CFSL never alleges any facts from which we can conclude that CFSL will be eliminated by the issuance of the permit. While appellants contend on brief that the injury to CFSL is frustration of its mission, we find nothing in the affidavits to support this argument. 5
Appellant relies on
Hunt. Hunt
involved a Washington State Apple Grower’s Commission asserting standing to challenge a North Carolina statute. The Court agreed they had representational standing, noting that the Washington commission could be financially affected by the reduction in receipt of annual assessments if North Carolina passed the statute in controversy.
While we agree with the rationale in Hunt, the facts of this case defeat appellant’s argument. First, CFSL does not allege, nor does it argue, financial loss. More importantly, CFSL fails to allege injury threatening the viability of their organization. As this is the sole injury argued by CFSL, we find that the omission of this allegation from the affidavits is fatal to CFSL’s claim for standing. 6
*123 Accordingly, we find that neither CBF nor CFSL have standing to sue in their own right. The judgment of the trial court, as to these issues, is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Code § 62.1-44.29 permits an organization to sue on behalf of its members. We remand to the trial court for a determination whether the appellants have met the requirements of representational standing consistent with this opinion. We further find that neither CBF nor CFSL have satisfied the requirements for standing to sue in their own right. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
Affirmed, in part, reversed and remanded, in part.
Notes
. Appellee Tri-City suggests that because the affidavits were not attached to the Petition for Appeal in the court below, they were "improperly offered for the first time via Appellant’s Brief in Opposition of the Commonwealth’s Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.” We find that the argument that the affidavits were not formally accepted into evidence by the trial court is without merit. In
Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County v. Department of Environmental Quality,
For the purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. At the same time, it is within the trial court’s power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff’s standing. If, after this opportunity, the plaintiff's standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed.
. Code § 10.1-1457(B) set forth the requirements for judicial review under the Virginia Waste Management Act. It stated:
Any person who has participated, in person or by the submittal of written comments, in the public comment process related to a final decision of the Board or Director under § 10.1-1408.1 or § 10.1-1426 and who has exhausted all available administrative remedies for review of the Board’s or Director's decision, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (§ 9-6.14:1 et seq.) if such person meets the standard for obtaining judicial review of a case or controversy pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. A person shall be deemed to meet such standard if (i) such person has suffered an actual or imminent injury which is an invasion of a legally protected interest and which is concrete and particularized; (ii) such injury is fairly traceable to the decision of the Board and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (iii) such injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision by the court.
. Appellees claim
Concerned Taxpayers
lacks precedential value because the Supreme Court reversed it on other grounds in
Aegis Waste Solutions v. Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County,
. The trial court found appellant CBF did not have actual standing because the organization did not own real or personal property that would be adversely affected by the Board’s decision and that CBF had no pecuniary interest in the area. While we now affirm on the ground that appellant CBF alleged only conclusions of injury and no facts in support thereof, we note that this argument was made to the trial court by Tri-City. We, therefore, find that the trial court reached the right result, but for the wrong reason.
See Driscoll v. Commonwealth,
. We do not address whether a threat to an organization’s viability is sufficient injury to confer standing.
. The trial court found appellant CFSL did not have actual standing because the organization did not own real or personal property that
*123
would be adversely affected by the Board's decision and that CFSL had no pecuniary interest in the area. While we now affirm on the ground that appellant CFSL did not allege injury in the affidavits, we note that this argument was made to the trial court by Tri-City. We, therefore, find that the trial court reached the right result, but for the wrong reason.
Driscoll,