*1 Wyoming, PEOPLE Appellants (Plaintiffs), COMPANY,
PLATTE PIPE LINE corporation, Appellee
Delaware
(Defendant).
No. 5666.
Supreme of Wyoming. Court
Aug. *2 upon
аWhen court is called to decide stated, it must a claim has been whether as complaint accept alleged the facts light true and view the entire matter in plaintiff. Moxley most favorable to Inc., Builders, P.2d 733 Laramie appeal is from a dismissal Since this claim, a will treat for failure state we proven as complaint the facts stated in the accordingly. them and set out 8,1980, crude oil April high-pressure On pipeline operated by appellee owned and As Wyoming, ruptured. County, Converse thousand, result, five eight an estimated were fifty-two barrels crude oil hundred River. the North Platte discharged into was specific spill location of oil northwest one-quarter the south-east NWV4)of thirty- section one-quarter (SEV4 west, three, north, range 75 township 34 con- The river was County. itself Converse town of taminated from the Glenrock Reservoir, approxi- a distance of Glendo mately sixty-eight miles. Freudenthal, Gen., F. Wal- Atty. Steven state, county federal, Numerous III, Gen., Perry, ter Asst. Atty. Sr. worked to the crisis and agencies responded Yoder, Atty. (argued), Marion Asst. Gen. 1980, By up May to clean appellants. for ninety-five percent estimated that was (argued), Morris G. Patrick G. Gray, Pitet into river had spilled the oil that had Bost- & R. Dixon of Murane Patrick Nevertheless, considerable been recovered. wick, Casper, appellee. for to the wildlife harm had been done аrea’s tangible known ecosystem. J, ROSE, RAPER, Before C. THOM- thousand, seven casualties included: one BROWN, AS, ROONEY and JJ. beavers, muskrats, fifty-two four hundred nine raccoon, one geese, nineteen hundred RAPER, Justice. ducks, goose eighty-three and one hundred had Further, effort appeal up This is taken from the dismissal the clean eggs. complaint sought the dam- of substantial required expenditure recover March ages People By suffered of the the state. money State sums into and Fish Commis- Wyoming spill Wyoming a result an oil Game thousand, expended forty-eight state waters. The basis for the dismissal sion had re- which dollars as a twenty-five was the failure to state claim for three hundred spill, Wyoming Depart- could granted. question relief sult of while had ex- Quality us to decide Envi- Wyoming is whether ment thousand, ninety seq., two hundred ronmental et four pended W.S.1977, for civil imposes dollars. oil a crude operator Attor- March On discharges into state pipeline which for the General, representative as the ney waters. Wyoming, initiated of the People as the owner against appellee,
We will
for further
an action
reverse
remand
discharged
operator
pipeline
of the
proceedings.
county by
curred or in Laramie
theory
complaint
crude oil.
the attor-
that,
because
discharged
oil had been
in the name
ney general
people
pipeline into watеrs
Wyoming.”
appellee had violated
35-11-
16,1981, appellee
April
On
moved
have
*3
W.S.1977,
301(a)(i)
(ii),
and
was thus
and
complaint
dismissed for failure to state
liable for the civil
set out
in
22,1981,
a
May
claim. On
filed its
35-ll-901(a)
(b),
§
W.S.1977. Section
in
brief
of its motion. The main
support
(ii),
35-ll-301(a)(i)
supra, provides:
argument
(1)
of
was that
35-
thrust
its
§
“(a)
person,
No
except when authorized
ll-301(a)(i)
(ii),
bar
supra,
did not
by permit
provi-
to
pursuant
issued
state,
discharge
of oil into waters of
act,
of
sions
this
shall:
did,
(2)
required
even if it
the statute
Cause,
“(i)
threaten or allow the dis-
person
with a
to have
charged
violation
of
charge
any pollution or wastes into the
manner,
been at fault in some
in permitting
state;
waters of the
the discharge
Wyoming
to occur. The
At-
“(ii)
chemical,
Alter
physical,
radio-
torney
responded
General
the dis-
logical, biological
bacteriological prop-
charge
Wyoming waterways
of oil into
was
of any
erties
of
waters
the state.”
prohibited,
and that whoever allowed
dis-
35-ll-901(a)
(b),
Section
supra, pro-
liable,
charge
strictly
of oil was
regardless
1
vides:
of fault.
“(a) Any person
provi-
who violates any
18, 1982,
February
On
the district court
act,
rule,
sion
this
or any
regulation,
granted
In
opinion
motion.
permit adopted
standard or
hereunder or
letter,
it indicated that
not believe
did
who
any
violates
determination or order
“impose
to
intended
pursuant
any
council
to this act or
for an oil
We are now
spill.”
rule, regulation, standard,
license,
permit,
called
to review the district court’s
or variance
penalty
is liable to a
to
35-ll-301(a)(i)
interpretation
(ii),
§
exceed ten
($10,000.00)
thousand dollars
supra.
for each day during which violation con-
We first address the
as to
question
tinues, which may be recovered in a civil
whether
35-11-301
violated when oil is
§
action, and
person
such
be
may
enjoined
discharged into state waters. This court
from continuing the violation as herein-
has
frequently
observed
that where
stat-
provided.
after
Damages are to be as-
face,
ute is clear on its
is no need
there
to
by
sessed
the court.
resort
to
of statutory
rules
construсtion.
“(b) Any person
act,
who violates this
of County
Board
Commissioners of County
rule, regulation,
thereby
causes the
Ridenour,
of Campbell
v.
623 P.2d
fish,
death of
aquatic
game
life or
or bird
(1981);
Pipeline
State v. Sinclair
Com-
is,
life
in
penalties pro-
addition to other
pany, Wyo.,
(1980);
preventing pollution, and thus defeat its ready of this state must “at all times be purpose. stated It is unreal to believe that willing to afford such remedies as are with a permit to allow an occur- unanticipated in the Compa law.” Roberts Construction rence such as that here described would Vondriska, ny Wyo., v. P.2d 547 1182 granted Pipelines even if applied for. do (1976). not—at least at the point rupture, as Clearly it is more consistent with the normally discharge wastes. here— discharge Act’s statеd to bar the A judicial basic tenet of our system exempt only pollu all those is that a light statute must be read in of its permit tion for which sources has been purpose. Wyoming City Treasurer v. showing obtained in advance and Casper, Wyo., 551 (1976). P.2d 687 If a quali discharge that the would leave water statute is clear on its face and the results ty acceptable within limits. that is Since produced aby literal reading help bring statutory language literally what the taken objective, about stated we will not en says, pro a reading since such would tertain strained impede constructions which duce results harmonious with the Act’s ob the legislative policy. Torrington jective, Town of we so read the Act.
213
(2)
pipeline
discharged
itself
discharge
person,
concluded that
Having
scope
physi-
in state waters is within the
and altered the river’s
crude oil
now
35-ll-301(a)(i)
(ii), supra,
cal, chemical,
we
biological properties,
re-
In
35-11-301, supra,
consider whether civil
attaches
was not violated.
pipeline compa-
gardless
Appellee
position
of fault.
is that
it should
essence
35-
argues
language
that
used in
ny
in
responsible
not be held
breakdown
11-301,
supra,
is
violated where
only
It is
we
equipment.
point
its
on this
that
reck-
operator
pipeline intentionally,
of a
that the statute is unclear.
agree
crude oil
lessly,
negligently permits
to.
its
When statute is unclear on
Attornеy
waterway.
enter a
face,
statutory provi
we
construe the
question of the
argues
General
the legislative
intent.
light
sion
fault
is irrelevant.
operator’s
Since
Sanches,
Wyo.,
P.2d
Sanches v.
requiring neg-
no provision
contains
(1981).
possible, statutes must
Where
ligence
permitting pollution
before liabil-
Depart
intended.
read
attach,
opera-
he
ity can
contends
Irvine,
v.
and Taxation
ment of Revenue
strictly
in the
pipeline
tor
liable
(1979). Overly-narrow
Wyo.,
Also of consideration under the complaint allege requisites does all the nec rules of statutory construction inter- essary to state a cause of action. pretation placed agen- pro- Reversed and remanded for further cy charged with its enforcement. In the ceedings consistent herewith. Injury Hasser, Matter of Wyo., 647 P.2d Department of Environmen- ROONEY, Justice, dissenting. tal Quality has been charged with enforce- *7 I would affirm the court. I be- district ment of the Act ever since passage in lieve the recognized necessary that court In May Department of the line boundary between that authorized and promulgated Chapter IY of the Water by legislature authorizable the that au- Quality Regulations Rules (W.Q.R.R.). by thorized and authorizable the courts. This chapter prescribed procedures the for judge opinion district said in his letter: reporting and controlling discharges of oil “I am frank to the of say that and hazardous substances into the waters of provide liability should strict the It state. also stated a discharge that of regard without the causation for dis- oil into state waters was a violation of the charge pollutant or emission into Quality Environmental Act as well as the upon the waters or of this the lands regulation. But most it importantly set out » * * * person that the owning having control over the oil or hazardous substances was He went on to the failure of recognize responsible for the cleanup 35-11-301, W.S.1977, initiation of a to do so. If he liabilities, well as the damages penalties in judge were the the district legislature, might ensue from the discharge. liability would have enacted strict re- Chapter IV, 5(c), W.Q.R.R. quirement premises. recog- But he the
215 the legisla- Amendments those who were in majority nized that a tive history negates the same them as a strict liabili- legislature yet the had not made ty enactment with reference to unintended decision. point (en- at than spills dischargеs other decision, other, one or the would way larged infra). This does mean not preciousness the depend upon weighing that had recourse re- appellants no for every, Wyo- of water to state of drop damages, only it covery such to be ming and the need for be rupture means that fault for must against free facts of cold economic v. Har- Company established.2 Oil Scurlock importance life and the of nation- everyday rell, 334 (1969), 443 Tex.Civ.App., S.W.2d al A requirements. liability defense strict Dalton, R.N.R.E.; v. Pipe Prairie Line Co. could result in abandonment of Tex.Civ.App., 243 619 S.W. pipelines or of an increase of five ten per cents It result in gallon necessary for fuel. сould not Appellants allege did and, foreign competitors, willfulness) a boost in case (be negligence “fault” emergency, Complaint. They simply alleged of national the lack of an imme- their diately necessary and dis- supply “pipeline ruptured available fuel River. for But it oil into North Platte charged” mobilized armed forces. could only proof court found that enjoyment fishing also district result be recov- this fact would not sufficient for coming genera- other for recreational use this, tions, ery. In district court was correct. an availability and it could mean agricultural products necessary to survival. majority Although opinion applies point is that these considerations are statute, it must liberal construction the legislature enacting pertinent for be that we are concerned mind borne relating laws and not to induce the thereto1 with statute.3 Penal statutes penal might courts like they to effect that which v. Board of strictly construed. Baker have the laws reflect. County, 59 P. Wyo. Com’rs of Crook 9 Jarvis, (1900); Wyo. 36 Brown Regardless which the State, (1927); Horn v. P. 336 might do, plain has fact that it not as 35-11-301, W.S. Section P.2d yet imposed found pertinent part: provides in majority opinion. It did do so enact- except when authorized “(a) person, No ing the Wyoming pursuant provi- by permit issued Act, 35-11-101, W.S.1977, This seq. et act, sions of this shall: speculate. for whatever reason we nеed not court, Cause, dis- As noted allow the “(i) trial 35-11-301 threaten or §§ 35-11-302, W.S.1977, patterned were or wastes into charge any pollution state; after the Federal Water Pollution Control waters party may It 1. It made a to this suit. is claimed that action need not be special opt indispensable party either black or type white. is The in this action pipelines for the Telephone Telegraph construction Mountain States they streams, special are over near or for (Mountain Bell), entity subject Company lines, inspections regular perhaps process, to service of in that its absence *8 guards prevent disgruntled for armed to for- among completе cannot be accorded relief employee mer * other motivated saboteur * already parties, those maliciously breaking from the lia- line. Strict bility by majority opinion, as the established But, 3. statute criminal sanctions. contains resulting appellee makes liable for a break only penalties, strict if it even contained civil sabotage or an act of God. required. is construction “ * * * imposing penalties like- are dismiss, Statutes part 2. As to of motion subject of strict construc- wise tion; to this rule moved the court: “ * * * they include be to will not construed pursuant 12(b)(7), Rule to W.R. letter, though it beyond anything even their Civ.P., dismissing for an order either the ** spirit Am. may 36 be their defendant, within Complaint against ordering the Penalties, 8, p. 616. § indispensable Jur.2d Forfeitures party pursuant that an to Rule Procedure, of Civil be Rules 216 chemical,
“(ii) physical, the operated Alter radio- erate in lieu of the federal system. logical, bacteriological biological prop- directly 35-11-301 and Sections 35-11-302 the quality. erties of waters of state.” concern water Section quoted supra, by “except is premised when “threaten,” “cause,” “allow,” The verbs by permit.” authorized 35-11- Section of “alter” are words volition —either in the rules, regulations, 302 directs that the stan- passive negligence active sense or in the permit systems dards and to be issued for , Standing alone, sense. they cоuld serve to of of promoting purposes negate potential interpretation for prescribe” among the act “shall other liability prohibited for result. things: Perhaps this should be sufficient for a “(v) per- for the issuance of Standards holding imposed that strict is not mits to section pursuant as authorized However, by the I agree statute. with the 402(b) of the Water Pollution Federal opinion statute, majority Act as amend- Control U.S.C. § [33 1342] read with the rest of enactment of ed and as it be hereafter part, it is a is unclear ambigu- amended.” ambiguous ous.4 The definition of an con- for the nation tive. The Federal Water Pollution Control circumstances Accordingly, opinion, we must construe thе make the Act had been amended in 1972 to provide discharges system tract accordance ambiguous enactment: present. In this expression or because a double its meaning because of indefiniteness of “ * * * bet, §§ more is 35-11-301 and System, National Pollutant appropriate instance, one capable ways with the [Citation.]” permit pollutants 604 P.2d surrounding, i.e., than one. recognized 33 U.S.C. the cause for the legislative system. intent clear and posi- 35-11-302 in 1973 at Hollabaugh v. Kol being Discharge * * * specified by definition of the enactment It concerned for, intent. 1342. This understood meaning obscure in majority and the points. Elimi- is recognition pollution sources. The federal act was allow sufficient mately eliminate such sources. sources cern the points intended to supervision in U.S.C. mit programs under sections 402 and 404 * * * “(a) “(b) Sections “(1) it discharge of ble this of pollution. They were the States § sjc * waters be eliminated ” ** ** issuance 35-11-301 pollution is the of existing satisfy n U.S.C. necessary lieu [33 time to decrease and ulti- is the policy pollutants * * * of permits national # USCS §§ federal and the and 35-11-302 implement requirements specified to n accomplish into goal p. supervision for necessity legislatively [*] 1985; points or Congress specified the per- naviga- 1344]. state con- [*] 33 to It made necessary the issuance a permit The legislature intended 35-11-301 §§ Administrator of the Environmental and 35-11-302 implement 33 U.S.C. Agency Protection pollutants before such provide and to that necessary could discharged into navigable state have over primary control waters of the United (including States permit system as a of decreasing means River). North however, Platte It provided, ultimately pollution. water eliminating sections, that a state permit system found designed Such were not apply satisfactory by op- administrator could nonintended sources. example, prohibition 4. For pond; in the statute it would ban the exhaust emissions from (§ 11—301(a)(ii), W.S.1977) against altering pond; a motor boat into a and it stream 35— physical, chemical, radiological, “the biological pond would bаn livestock from stream or use. bacteriological properties waters” Yet the definition of in the act *9 placing would ban the (§ 35-ll-103(c)(i), W.S.1977) anticipates a worm or other agri- bait from pond; the end of a line into a stream it cultural and recreational use of the water. taking would ban the fish from a stream oil apply intended to to nonintended not impetus that question “There is no 35-11-302, The liability to strict therefor. spills the act 35-11-301 and and for [§§ enacting a direct and its structure was intention of the W.S.1977] Quali- imple- of the Federal Water was to consequence and 35-11-302 35-11-301 §§ ” * * * ty Act Amendments 1972. by as authorized permit, system, ment material (Footnote omitted and bracketed 1342, which has reference to 33 U.S.C. § added.) Quality Wyoming Water pollu- and ultimate elimination reduction Pollution Act and the Federal Water applica- no specific points. It has tion 1972: A Control Act Amendments of spill to the oil in this case. tion Re- Comparison, Land and Water Law attempts to avoid majority opinion view, IX, 1, p. (1974).5 Vol. No. forego- and common sense of logic Raisch, Ipsen Also see and Enforcement it a label of “undiluted ing by attaching to Under the Federal Water Pollution Control label, however, The use of a sophistry.” Act Amendments of Land and Water relationship of the federal cannot refute the Review, IX, No. p. Law Yol. and 35-11- with 35-11-301 legislation §§ 35-11- timing of the enactment of §§ enact- history of both legislative 35-11-302, purpose 301 and its obvious to Wyo- of the plain wording ments and the of fed- provide state administration in lieu enactment, reflect all of which ming administration, the direct reference in eral en- Wyoming intent to have the legislative its on predication to 33 U.S.C. § point for apply permit system actment to a permit system reflect —all uses discharges. majority opinion supplement pertain the act to and intent for a stat- contending reasoning twisted 1342. encompassed by to that 33 U.S.C. § pertain may not purpose ute with a defined Inasmuch as this is so and inasmuch accomplishing one means of only to apply to the federal act referred does purpose that since the It reasons purpose. sources, spills or nonintended reduce “prevent, is to 35-11-301 ap- not so Wyoming similarly act does (see W.S. pollution” eliminate ply- only re- permit 1977), pertain it cannot This rea- point discharges. for impose quirements a federal act which does There is exist which would similar to that soning spills spills for oil substances, i.e., contended that since if it were hazardous 33 U.S.C. § on the limit speed 55-mile-per-hour Hazardous of a Spill It is entitled “Oil Sub- pro- accidents prevent is to highway enacted Liability” originally stance vehi- requirement pay- safety, mote another provides cleanup in 1970. It for right side cles be driven on prоvides therefor. the owner ment efforts at that all cannot exist and cleanup highway costs and may recover 55-mile-per- $35,- by the governed must be causing safety A parties from third government federal limit. The 000,000.00 cleanup speed for if hour fund is established reduction accomplish it. accomplish has two statutes cannot or does not the owner (1) permit pollution: elimination of acknowledged argument Appellants (2) a strict discharges, and point for government system the federal the trial court that for costs (with provisions liability system under this act in connection proceeded has for clean- money recovery and per- penalty and that has spill with this finance, etc.) for could not ups if the owner cleanup payments and has made formed statute, pur- enacted has a Wyoming spills. 35-11-301 and pursuant thereto. Sections stat- permit the federal to terms of legisla- suant by 35-11-302 were not enacted per- of a means ute, to reduce Spill the Federal Oil respect ture with It has not discharges. system point were mit They Act. and Hazardous Substance four-part Act of 1973. E. of a comment 5. Portion Ted Orf regarding *10 yet liability statute enacted It is
spills.
province
not the
of the courts to
TREASURER, ex
WYOMING STATE
rel.
do
legislature’s province
so.
It is the
to WYOMING WORKER’S COMPENSA
if
decide
such
exist.
should
DIVISION, Appellant (Objector-
TION
Defendant)
majority opinion
argu-
slides into an
ment premised upon
“malfunctioning
Trucking, Inс.,
Burch
breakdown”
equipment.
(Defendant-Employer),
nothing
There is
absolutely
record to
reflect such
complaint
occurrence.
If the
v.
such,
had hinted of
it probably would not
SCHWILKE,
Shelby
Denise
on Behalf of
have been
Argument
dismissed.
directed at
Deceased,
SCHWILKE,
Appellee
this strawman is irrelevant.
(Claimant-Employee).
A final
must be
comment
made relative
No. 5690.
to imposition
penal
of strict
general
statute. Normally,
intent
is re-
Wyoming.
Supreme Court
quired as an
of a
element
crime. In other
Aug.
1982.
words, the act
must
done voluntarily.
Rehearing
Aug.
Denied
State,
Slaughter v.
Wyo.,
make an act knowledge criminal without actor,
intent of the legislative intent to
do appear. so must clearly
“Generally speaking, pro- when an act is
hibited and punishable by made
only, statute is to be construed in the
light of the common law and the exist- of a
ence intent regarded criminal is to be essential, although the terms of the ” **
statute do not require it. Shedoudy,
v. 45 N.M. 118 P.2d Stuart, People
See 47 Cal.2d 302 P.2d
5, 55 A.L.R.2d
intent impose strict liability spills for oil
does clearly appear in 35-11-301.
The silence of the statute with reference to
the element of knowledge or intent certain-
ly does not satisfy requirement
such clearly Thus, appear. knowledge
or intent is a necessary element of the
offense. the present
Under status of Wyoming
law, the decision of the district court should
be affirmed.