*1 twenty-five percent limit contained chapter Wyoming 3 of the 1988 section Holly’s Laws. claim to have

Session process due on account of Coun-

denied

ty adopt proce- Board’s rules failure is without merit.

dure

DISPOSITION

The order Equaliza- of the State Board of Holly’s established FMV of $18,886,898

Torrington at re- factory

versed. This case is remanded to the Gosh- County Equalization

en Board for an

evidentiary compe- hearing determine on adjustments

tent evidence the 1990

functional and economic obsolescence. EQUIPMENT CO., an

UNIVERSAL corporation, Appellant

Ohio

(Defendant), By Wyoming Through

STATE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN- (Defendant). QUALITY, Appellee

TAL

No. 92-21.

Supreme Wyoming. Court of

Oct.

Appellee Wyoming restates the State issues as: correctly I. Whether the district court determined that and structures Herschler, David D. Freudenthal of City subject at the are Atlantic Mine Rideout, Freudenthal, Salzburg, Bonds & bonding require- the reclamation and P.C., Yarbrough Cheyenne, and Michael K. Wyoming ments of the Environmental Columbus, Ohio, Jacobs, of Frost and for Quality Act. appellant. II. Whether the district court has de- termined that at the Atlantic Gen., Atty. Joseph Meyer, Mary B. B. City complete. mine is Guthrie, Jones, Gen., Attys. Asst. Steve Sr. Roan, Gen., Atty. A. Thomas Asst. and Joel Corporation United States Steel owned Vincent, Riverton, M. Vincent of Vincent & operated and an ore iron mine located near appellee. City County, Wyo- for Atlantic in Fremont ming, many years, pursuant for first to a MACY, C.J., THOMAS, Before permit authority issued under the of the * CARDINE, GOLDEN, URBIGKIT and then, Open Cut Land Reclamation Act and 1974, JJ. starting in under November the au- thority WEQA permit. of a After receiv- MACY, Chief Justice. ing WEQA permit, its United States Steel operate continued to the mine for several Appellant Equipment Universal chal- Co. years finally more until it ceased active lenges requiring the district court’s order mining in 1983. Rather than reclaim the post performance an additional bond to itself, mine United States Steel sold the ensure reclamation of its mine-site build- mining permit mine and transferred its ings Appellant and facilities. contends Appellant in January By accepting Wyoming Quality Environmental transfer of United States Steel’s (WEQA) Depart- Act does not authorize the permit, Appellant salvage rights obtained (DEQ) Quality ment of Environmental mining equipment to the on-site and materi- impose responsibility als and assumed for reclaim- ments for and facilities which ing the mine permit site. As before the was enacted. built transfer, Appellant to submit We affirm. a new reclamation and to a recla- performance slightly bond of following raises the issues: more than million. $1.8 1. Whether and facilities permit that existed within a mine under 1985, Beginning contracted Open Cut Reclamation Act of companies perform [Land] with various differ- subject 1969 are to additional reclama- aspects project, ent of the reclamation such bonding requirements tion and under the engineering and construction. Reclama- Environmental Act of 1973 continued activities from 1985 until the converting original permit spring dispute virtue of when a arose be- EQA companies, tween one of these to a under the of 1973. ARIX Cor- poration, Appellant regarding Appel- entry 2. Whether of an order pay engineer- lant’s failure to ARIX for its directing payment District Court ing ARIX services. filed a breach-of-con- proceeds pursuant reclamation bond to a action, naming tract both and the payments contract which authorized such Wyoming, by through State of only upon completion of all reclama- DEQ, as defendants. tion, precluded the Court from later de- termining for, that reclamation was not com- ARIX moved and the district court plete directing posting granted, summary judgment against of addi- Ap- pellant unpaid engineering tional bond. services. * argument. Chief Justice at time of oral satisfy judgment, applied ARIX engineering

To its ARIX for servic- garnishment against of postjudgment writ es. performance bond April On held court a hear- DEQ. held The State resisted on petition declaratory for a garnish- for postjudgment ARIX’s motion *3 judgment, significant with the issue ment, contending that it could not allow DEQ require whether the could Appellant garnishment of the bond until additional post performance to a sufficient bond to In completed. con- reclamation had demolishing ensure the costs of and remov- post- a

junction resisting with its answer buildings the mine’s and facilities. In a judgment garnishment, petitioned the State declaratory judgment and order for a recla- declaratory judg- the district court for a bond, performance the district court responsibilities to ment determine the be- DEQ require found that the Appel- could and, parties particular tween the of three lant provide Ap- to additional for importance appeal, Ap- to this to determine pellant’s remaining obligations, pellant’s obligation to demolish or make including demolition of the on-site struc- acceptable buildings some use of the mine’s tures. The court ordered to sub- part and facilities as of its reclamation sixty mit a days, detailed within indi- effort. cating buildings it intended to demol- requesting ARIX filed a motion the court proposed ish and the future use for those separate garnishment to its action from the retain, buildings or, it intended to in the DEQ’s petition declaratory for judgment. a alternative, post to a million $4 granted The district court ARIX’s motion performance DEQ. bond with the Under and, separate to order an entered on option, either order required the that 21, 1990, May found the held by that funds approximately bond of $386,000 posted be DEQ not subject garnishment. were to revegetation to ensure of the land which order, In that same the district court found had not been reclaimed as well as certain DEQ that a contract existed between the less costly contingency items, such as re- Appellant regarding Appellant’s per- pairing drainage structures and dust con- formance bond. The court based its con- However, Appellant trol. if post chose to upon clusion that a contract existed a ser- bond, the $386,000 million $4 would exchanged ies of letters between included in million. $4 DEQ in which agreed to DEQ’s estimating method of $300,0001 convert its reclamation bond demolishing buildings costs of the mine’s an from irrevocable letter of credit cash precise. was less than Moxley, Mark and to release funds the State sub- supervisor district Land ject specific Appellant’s conditions. re- Division, he testified that reached of expressly lease the funds was condi- an Appellant’s estimate of demolition costs upon using tioned money, State first, averaging demolishing of pay costs any remaining engineering mining operations on five trona and construction work done on the reclama- second, project; pay comparably with structures. any sized Mr. amounts owing services; third, Moxley on of construction felt his estimate million $3 services; engineering and, percent” pay ARIX for within “20 or 30 the actual finally, any demolishing to return excess costs of Ap- funds at the pellant. specifically requiring The district court en- mine In site. its order propose forced the contract which re- to either a million $4 bond2 DEQ quired pay any buildings, the amount owed beneficial use for retained noted, previously Appellant posted Apparently, 2. figure As a bond million $4 was com- approximately posed $1.8 million when it received plus $3 costs million demolition mining permit. United States Steel’s At time other and a additional reclamation work fifteen complaint, ARIX filed its reduced had percent contingency security fee to site cover $300,000 recognition expenses. and unforeseen Appellant’s partial the mine site. 970 acknowledged Appellant’s any statute,

the court conten- As primary our consid- tion that some of the reclamation discerning costs eration is Legislature’s in- unnecessarily high. To accommodate tent. Pipeline Company Belle Fourche Appellant’s objections, granted State, the court (Wyo.1988). P.2d Al- Appellant sixty days provide a detailed though this Court has not construed the analysis showing cost that the actual recla- particular provisions mine reclamation at mation costs would be lower than those case, issue in this previously we have inter- DEQ. estimated preted WEQA. other sections of the Peo- ple Pipe v. Platte Company, Line Appellant’s response to the court’s order Pipe Platte Line Com- any obligations concerning claimed that that, pany, we noted as an environmental were controlled its *4 designed protect statute public, plan, required reclamation neither of which WEQA is entitled to receive a liberal con- buildings. Although it to demolish the Ap- struction. at 212 (citing Id. Woolley pellant obligation felt that it had no Commission, 667, Highway State P.2d 387 buildings, demolish the it still conformed to (Wyo.1963)). 673 A liberal construction request the court’s to demonstrate an ac- does not mean that canwe force words out ceptable postmining buildings. use for the meaning their natural but does present described the use of the give us to words a fair and reasonable buildings essentially being storage space as interpretation so object as to obtain the for mining machinery waiting for to be sold. designed. which the statute was using Soles v. buildings Rather than in the fu- State, 772, ture, 774 Appellant hoped property, to sell the including and facilities. Ap- To better understand whether pellant declined the court’s invitation to WEQA applies even pre-WEQA build- analysis showing submit an that the ings facilities, helpful it is to first building demolition estimates were inaccu- briefly Open examine the Cut Land Recla- Instead, Appellant rate. upon relied its (Reclamation Act), mation Act gov- which argument, repeated appeal, now on mining erned surface prior precluded district court was from ordering WEQA’s Wyo.Sess. enactment. 1969 posted. an additional bond to be The dis- 192, 1969, Laws ch. Legis- 1-14. In §§ trict court found that proposed lature enacted the Reclamation Act as a future use for the was insuffi- curbing means of economic and environ- cient and ordered post a $4 damage mental caused mining surface million bond. in Wyoming. Act, Under the Reclamation

The first issue must mining operators we consider is surface whether the regu and its rules and mining permit obtain a and to a bond grant DEQ authority lations impose with the Commissioner of Public Lands to reclamation and requirements ensure availability of sufficient funds upon mine-site which were built for the reclamation of affected lands. The prior WEQA’s to the enactment. Reclamation Act also established obli- WEQA’s language pro contends that the gations is mining operators for surface spective, precluding thus from land, reclaim and restore the but it was imposing bonding require reclamation and being vague criticized as having inade- pre-WEQA ments on quate facilities. As evi reclamation standards. Its ineffec- WEQA prospective, dence that the Ap ultimately tiveness repeal by led to its pellant quotes Wyo.Stat. 35-ll-406(b) Legislature Wyo.Sess.Laws 1973. 1973 § (Supp.1992), provides pertinent which ch. 3. Belle Pipeline Fourche § part: [mining permit] application “The Company, 766 P.2d at 546. See also Rob- Brown, mining plan Comment, shall include a and reclamation ert E. Land Quality: plan dealing with the extent to which the Regulation Mining Recla- of Surface mining operation change will disturb or the mation Wyoming, 9 Land & WateR added.) lands (Emphasis (1974). to be affected.” L.Rev. quirements.

Repeal Operation Wyo. of the Reclamation Act did defined open-cut min- 35-ll-103(e)(viii) mean that lands disturbed (Supp.1992): Stat. § Rather, ing could left unreclaimed. (viii) “Operation” means all of the ac- Legislature expanded and clarified the rec- tivities, equipment, premises, facilities, lamation and conservation duties surface structures, roads, rights-of-way, waste by enacting WEQA. operators excluding and refuse areas uranium mill Wyo.Sess.Laws ch. addi- § facilities, tailings and mill within the Nu- establishing permitting tion to a new Regulatory clear Commission license scheme, WEQA contained area, storage areas, processing provisions helped existing several shipping process areas used in the mining operators bridge gap surface excavating removing or overburden and the Reclamation Act and the between minerals from the affected land or for WEQA. existing provisions These min- removing purpose overburden for the ing operations provide us valuable as- location, determining quality quan- or understanding sistance in whether tity deposit of a natural mineral WEQA’s requirements apply the reclamation of affected lands[.] or, preexisting operations added.) case, (Emphasis In this the facili- claims, only operations conducted after ties and structures prior were constructed Among pro- enactment. those *5 WEQA’s enactment, to the opera- but the Wyo.Stat. (Supp. visions is 35-11-401 § tion as a whole completed was not or sub- 1992), pertinent provides part: which stantially completed prior WEQA’s to the (a) mining operation operation No or date, July effective 1973. United States solid minerals which are intended to operated prior Steel the mine to the from be extracted the earth shall be com- WEQA’s enactment and continued to ac- after menced the effective date of the tively mine iron ore at the site until 1983. act, except in accordance with its mining Since the were of the recognized ments. It is these measures operation operation and the com- performed public are in the interest and pleted substantially completed or prior to expense operator, constitute an to the WEQA’s date, effective we conclude applies and while this act to all subject are to the operations, operator no be com- shall WEQA’s requirements. pelled perform expense to at his own 35-ll-401(b)’s one-year grace pe- Section measures under this act with merely riod reinforces the idea that respect operations to were com- WEQA applies preexisting operations. to pleted substantially completed prior or illogical grant operators It would be to

to the date this act.... effective grace period complying WEQA with the (b) underground mining All surface or WEQA if applied only operations to operations operating at the date of enact- pur- conducted after its enactment. The period ment of this statute shall have a is, pose grace period of a (1) presumably, to year of one within which to fulfill the temper severity adapting to requirements period act. new this This requirements. WEQA If may only applied be extended at the discretion of the if prospective mining operations, council the administrator has un- existing operations able to review and evaluate all operators position would be in the same as presently operating that are per- under a operators new and would have no need for mit issued the state land commission- grace period. compliance “Open er in with the Cut really does not contest Land Reclamation Act of 1969[.”] WEQA’s application pre-WEQA opera- added.)

(Emphasis argues WEQA’s tions but reclama- bonding requirements prospec- The inference to tion and are obvious be drawn from (a) WEQA preexisting op- aspects may ap- is that tive if other subsection those even completed substantially ply. Appellant’s interpretation appears erations not or completed subject WEQA’s WEQA. very purpose to the re- contradict the of the WEQA operation designed presently to “enable the state conducted under prevent, pollution; eliminate reduce and permit, Reclamation Act the administra- air, preserve, and enhance water and tor pay particular must attention to certain Wyoming; plan reclaim the land of social, economic, technological varia- use, reclamation, development, preserva- paid only bles. This added attention air, tion and enhancement of the land and plans submitted Reclama- Wyo.Stat. water resources of the state.” permittees. It illogical Act would be (1988). adopt Appel- 35-11-102 If we § special to make for those concessions recla- interpretation WEQA lant’s as not plans operations concern be- preexisting requiring opera- conducted after enact- tions, Appellant could leave the Presumably, ment. the added consider- empty if so desired. shells Such a 35-ll-402(a)(vii) ations in were meant to § Legis- result would with the be inconsistent complying reduce the harshness with the

lature’s stated intent to either reclaim or WEQA’s requirements. new reclamation develop the land. If plans referenced general statutory pur- addition to the 35-ll-402(a)(vii) not apply preex- did § pose language, specific contains isting operations applied only to new Legislature’s ap- evidence of the intent to operations, grant special no need consid- ply requirements preex- the reclamation permittees eration to Reclamation Act isting operations completed which were not would exist because the reclamation bur- substantially prior completed to its en- dens would same as any be the those of 35-ll-402(a)(vii) Wyo.Stat. actment. § operator. 35-ll-402(a)(vii)’s new Section (Supp.1991)3 provided: language this interpretation. reinforced (a) shall, upon The council recommen- paragraph That discussed the reclamation board, advisory dation establish any mining operation “presently *6 pursuant regulations rules and to the being conducted” the economic feasibil- following reclamation standards for the ity reclaiming of the “affected area.” Both areas, including affected but not limited phrases apply operations already in exis- to: WEQA tence at the time the was enacted. argues WEQA’s also that the (vii) In administering established bonding provisions provide evidence that regulations rules and on such stan- applicable is preexisting not advisory dards the administrator and WEQA’s primary facilities. The bonding all board shall consider the facts and provision Wyo.Stat. (Supp. 35-11-417 § bearing upon any circumstances recla- 1992), in provides pertinent part: which plan. mation In consideration of recla- (a) purpose any of required The bond plans any mining operation for to be filed with the administrator is presently conducted in operator assure oper- shall be to the state under a issued faithfully perform ator shall all state “Open land commission under the comply ments of this act with all 1969[,”] Cut Land Reclamation Act of regulations rules and of the board made' particular paid attention shall be to: provisions in accordance with of this (A) The social and economic value of act. mined; product (B) technological availability feasibility reclaiming (c)

economic of any The amount of bond to be filed affected prior with the administrator area[.] commenc- ing any mining shall be: 35-ll-402(a)(vii) fully Section indicated (i) Legislature require intended For an initial bond the amount equal preexisting operations. reclamation of some to the estimated cost of reclaim- considering plan ing When a reclamation for an the affected land disturbed and Wyo.Sess.Laws April 3. Amended ch. effective § 3 restoring, defined in 35-11- Legislature require W.S. ous for the reclama- 103(f)(iii), groundwater any disturbed tion pre-WEQA opera- but mining year during situ the first tions. operation permit.... of under each WEQA’s Having determined that the rec- (ii) Por renewal bonds the amount and bonding requirements lamation apply equal to the estimated cost of reclaim- preexisting operations, we must now during the land to be disturbed the duty imposed by WEQA examine period, renewal and the estimated cost upon operators to their buildings reclaim completing of reclamation of unre- and structures. The sole refer- groundwater leased lands dis- 35-ll-406(b)(iv), ence to is in § prior during periods turbed time. of requires plan which the reclamation to in- The estimated cost shall on be based clude the disposal “[m]ethod operator’s estimate, cost which during and structures opera- erected any changes shall include in the actual Quality tion.” The Land Division’s rules of un- estimated cost regulations insight offer further into lands, plus released affected ad- operator what an to do with estimate of ministrator’s the additional mine-site and structures. Prior bringing cost to person- the state September regula- the rules and equipment nel and operator should the pertinent tions part: stated fail or the site be abandoned. In addition b. to that re- information bonding provisions Wyo. Other include 35-ll-406(b), quired by appli- W.S. each 35-ll-403(a)(ii) Stat. (Supp.1992) which § cation for a permit shall contain: authorizes the Land ad- Division’s of, collect, ministrator fix the amount “[t]o (3) planA whereby operator will comply maintain and otherwise reclaim the pro- affected lands statutory performance bond requirement posed postmining use in land accor- set Wyo. out W.S. 35-11-417.” See also IV, Chapter dance with Section 2a. 11—110(a)(ii)(Supp.1992). Stat. § 35— shall include: view, 35-ll-403(a)(ii) In our both § 35-ll-417(c)(ii) authorize the administra- § (h) disposal A of build- require tor to ensure the reclama- ings and structures in accordance with pre-WEQA buildings and facilities. *7 IV, requirements Chapter the of Sec- out, Appellant accurately points As tion 2.k. determining statute refer does not bond amount on the basis of the of costs II, 2.b(3)(h) (1985). Chapter Section buildings demolishing predate Disposal buildings k. of and struc- However, WEQA. to be consistent with tures. WEQA, statutory the rest of the the broad (1) All buildings and structures language allowing must read as be such be removed must or dismantled unless required. WEQA clearly bond to be The to the can be demonstrated adminis- contemplated op- of those buildings trator’s satisfaction that completed substantially erations or structures will be of beneficial use completed prior enactment. accomplishing proposed in use of WEQA designed, If the in were at least the land after reclamation or for envi- part, operations, that preexisting reclaim monitoring. ronmental goal severely impeded would lack by be IV, 2.k(l) (1985). Chapter Section The of bonding requirement. Performance regulations regarding disposal rules and of provide operators incentive for bonds an buildings September modified complete fi- provide reclamation and also require mining permit applications nancing for reclamation costs forfeiture include: Essentially, bonding require- cases. (H) sys- plan disposal ment is what makes the A for the of build- work, incongru- erected, tem ings so it have been would and structures used or applicant buildings. that, in accordance Appellant maintains modified IV, requirements Chapter excluding reclamation and removal of 2.(k).

Section buildings from the bond and the recla- plans 1989, between 1973 and II, Chapter 2(b)(iii)(H)(1986) (em- Section DEQ long-standing demonstrated its inter- added). phasis pretation requiring as not (k) Disposal buildings and structures. pre-WEQA buildings to Ap- be reclaimed. (i)All buildings and structures con- pellant urges this Court to defer to the structed, improved by oper- used or agency’s' long-standing interpretation. ator must be removed or dismantled un- Fuels, Edwards, WYMO Inc. v. less it can be demonstrated to the admin- Contrary Appel- istrator’s buildings satisfaction that the claim, DEQ lant’s we do not think that the or structures will use in beneficial interpreted excluding the statute as recla- accomplishing proposed use of the bonding requirements mation and land after reclamation or for environmen- Instead, buildings. pattern we detect a monitoring. tal carelessness approving rec- IV, Chapter 2(k)(i)(1986)(emphasis Section plans lamation specifically which did not added). state what would be done with the build- dispute Some parties between the ings mining once ceased. concerning exists which version of the Steel, Appellant’s United States prede- regulations brief, applies. rules and In its cessor, only briefly mentioned the mine’s upon the State relies the more recent lan buildings in plan its first reclamation sub- guage, while contends that the mitted in 1974: language apply. older should The newer buildings The opera- associated with language applicable mining opera to all ground tions are all located on fee owned tions “commenced or conducted” after the by U.S. Steel and are of substantial con- effective date of the regulations. rules and struction. It I, (1986). possible Chapter 3(a) beneficial Section Since active use can be made buildings of these ceased fol- determination of lowing completion operations. applies depends upon which version wheth Those er for which there is reclamation efforts consti no beneficial mining operations. tute use will perceive salvaged. We be dismantled and no question because, pursu ground need to decide this Since are both regu Steel, ant to either version of the owned United dispo- rules and States final lations, operators mine are sition to re decisions should remain with Unit- move or dismantle the unless ed States Steel. they put will be to a beneficial use consis Appellant acquired When the mine in proposed tent with the use of the land. DEQ required a new reclamation language merely added in 1986 limits a condition of the transfer. *8 buildings dismantled, the must which be a 1985, Appellant November complied with concept appear, anything, which would if to DEQ’s the by condition submitting pro- a benefit, hinder, potentially Appellant. not posed plan reclamation which identified cer- Thus, WEQA, we conclude that sup the as buildings tain to be removed and others to

plemented by the Land Division’s Appellant remain. subsequently submitted regulations, requires rules and Appellant to proposed permit a application revision and buildings either reclaim the put or them to plan reclamation suggested dispos- which a beneficial use. ing of the in the same manner as only question plan

The the first remaining but added: “The use of the Appellant whether required could be to facilities to remain yet has not been deter- post a buildings’ Appellant’s final, bond for the if mined.” approved demolition recla- DEQ the consistently approved reclamation mation buildings by dealt with the plans for the mine proposing site which did not re to “[m]aintain [the facilities] quire operator the to or remove demolish is for future commercial/industrial use.” right pellant] initially has the to establish to written DEQ memorandum An internal performance the amount reclamation area will “The mine facilities file said: the competent engineering analysis, serving a future hopes bond left intact be subject and report use.” of which to review industrial or commercial the Quality Administra- approval by the Land Appellant’s court found that The trial pro- Appellant chose not to submit tor.” that plan assumed reclamation approved though may amount. Even we posed bond area buildings remaining the the high bonding require- frustrated be instead would would not be demolished but ment, Appellant’s responsibility to it was agree with put commercial use. We be to more accurate provide the court with a Both United court’s assessment. the trial estimate, provide such and it chose not to reclamation States Steel’s put intent to the build- an estimate. plans indicated an use. The internal ings to future beneficial issue, Appellant con In its second belief memorandum evidences precluded that the district court was tends put to a benefi- that the would be determining reclamation at the from that they and that did not postmining cial use argu complete. Appellant’s mine not was Thus, we conclude need to be reclaimed. summary judg ARIX’s ment is related to in- DEQ’s long-standing failure to that engineering against Appellant for ment building demolition the the costs of clude summary obtaining its services. After mine’s and reclamation sought against Appellant, ARIX judgment assumption that the ments was due to an garnish Appellant’s reclamation bond be to use, put to buildings would be beneficial DEQ. The district court held buildings did not have to be not that the subject found that the bond was reclaimed. However, the court did find garnishment. it is recognize perception that We DEQ that a contract existed between DEQ require manifestly unfair regarding Appellant’s recla approximately $1.8 bond of that, pursuant to the con mation bond and $300,000 million, to reduce that bond tract, DEQ required pay ARIX was reclaimed the Appellant partially after by Appellant. it The the amount owed to mine, then to increase the bond $4 DEQ contract between injustice is not perception million. a series of letters between consisted of DEQ After the became entirely accurate. agreed to convert two which might abandon concerned from an form of its reclamation buildings, DEQ sought a the mine’s of credit to cash and irrevocable letter Appel- declaratory judgment to determine DEQ subject funds to the release the obligation to reclaim lant’s Among the conditions conditions. certain The court’s to a beneficial use. put them DEQ pay would proviso Appellant to declaratory judgment allowed only engineering services after ARIX for buildings from the remove remaining any paid the costs pro- bonding provisions by ordered the The district court work. buildings’ viding plan for the a detailed specifically perform that provide an Appellant did not future use. paid ARIX contract buildings’ fu- plan explaining the adequate Appellant. Appel money owed to it an ade- supply use. The failure ture that, argues by ordering pay now lant Appellant was re- plan meant that quate ARIX, past due amounts to ment of the A million $4 bond. quired $4 *9 necessarily court must have found trial inequitable especially appears million bond completed that all reclamation had been testimony his Moxley’s that Mr. light in paid only all ARIX was to be after because percent” 30 “20 or was within estimate completed. reclamation was i.e., costs; perhaps a the actual demolition Appellant’s argument is inconsistent is Although million $4 dollars off. million subsequent with the trial court’s declarato- speculative, the obviously somewhat “[Ap- ry judgment, in court stated: which the judgment stated: declaratory court’s 976

By Specific culpable negligence its Order for Performance induces to another be- 21,1990, May exist, latter, of Contract dated which lieve certain facts to and the $99,201.85 facts, [DEQ] pay knowing the was to ordered not acts on belief such (the Corporation is, project engi- prejudice, to ARIX to his substantial the former neer) complete payment engi- to for its in equity, estopped deny to existence neering services, cases, the Court did not make such fact.” more recent we have findings regarding obligations equitable estoppel requires said that some [Appellant] misrepresentation generally applied for final reclamation of the is City governed prevent fraud, Atlantic Iron Mine as or either constructive ac- 231C; instead, Glass, Permit to Mine Number tual. B v. &W Inc. Weather Shield Inc., 809, such Mfg., (Wyo.1992); Court reserved determinations 829 813 P.2d Squaw for further order this case. Company Mountain Cattle v. Bowen, 1292, (Wyo.1991). 804 P.2d 1297 finding, foregoing Consistent with the Equitable estoppel against governmental required Appellant post court a bond to requires agency egregious even more con- completion of ensure the several additional duct. items, revegetation drainage such Equitable estoppel should not in- control. The combination court’s against government public voked or specific regarding Appellant’s statement agency functioning governmental its obligations and its order for except capacity, in rare and unusual cir- Appellant a bond for additional may cumstances and not be invoked inescapable reclamation leads to the conclu- where it would serve defeat effec- sion order specific per- that court’s operation tive policy adopted pro- of a formance was not a determination that all public. tect the completed. reclamation had been Big Piney Oil & Company Wyo- Gas argument, In a Appellant related ming Oil Gas Conservation Commis- that, pursuant claims to the doctrine of sion, (Wyo.1986),quoted 715 P.2d 560 equitable estoppel, DEQ estopped is Wyoming State ex rel. Workers’ Com- requesting any from additional reclamation pensation Rivera, Division v. 796 P.2d activity. Appellant’s argument for invok (Wyo.1990), 450 Sare v. Sheri- ing equitable estoppel the doctrine of County dan Board County Commis- First, DEQ consistently repre twofold: sioners, 595 $300,000 Appellant sented to bond complete case, would DEQ be sufficient to all remain In this functioning ing governmental reclamation activities. relied within capacity its of ensur- upon representation changed ing this when it the mine’s reclamation. We discern no its irrevocable letter of credit cash and rare and unusual sup- circumstances which gave DEQ. Second, port the funds to the invoking equitable when estoppel against DEQ DEQ. district court ordered the to pay DEQ When Appel- reduced ARIX, necessarily $300,000, determined that all lant’s reclamation it obvi- completed. had ously activities considered that amount as suf- According Appellant, complete failure ficient to remaining reclama- appeal repre the district requirements court's order at the mine. In the en- suing sented to that all letters between and the completed DEQ activities had been Appellant agreed and that the in which to release DEQ estopped DEQ, should now be from parties assert its funds to the both assumed $300,000 otherwise. satisfy would the additional reclamation costs. canWe find no evi- support equitable estoppel To its claim of record, dence in offers against DEQ, Appellant upon this relies evidence, no indicate mis- Court’s statement in Big Seaman v. Horn represented the reclamation costs. Association, 391, 398, Wyo. Canal (1923): P. who his acts or ground equitable second “[0]ne representations that, intentionally through estoppel appealing the trial

977 damage may from moisture flow. specific performance, the occur order for court’s $386,000 revegetation that all rec- and DEQ represented to bond for completed. activities had been I justified, lamation activities is but other restorative fail- Appellant’s contention that go require further to the total would not representation appeal constituted a ure to do, likely If it is as bond of million. we $4 at and Appellant seems tenuous best $386,000 as not that even a bond will be an give grounds rise to certainly does expectation. unrealistic estoppel. equitable join affirming I decision of the in Affirmed. court, except trial with the administrative agency’s increase of the reclamation bond Justice, URBIGKIT, concurring part in covering to a sufficient total the cost of dissenting part. in building demolition and site renovation. It recognized pollution that stream It imposition is concluded that the additional in problems potentially are involved this unauthorized, agency Roberts present In appeal. consideration Vondriska, v. 547 P.2d 1171 Const. Co. partial status of the reclama- performance ap in (Wyo.1976),and this court’s decision activities, forcefully discussed in cur- proval factually legally sup cannot be urgency in reports, rent news the need for ported appellate record. this Platte appellate apparent. decision is our Co., 208; Pipe Holding’s P.2d Line 649 County America v. Board Little need, recognizing I concur with of County, Laramie 670 P.2d 699 Com’rs direction, general the court’s decision appeal (Wyo.1983), remand concern but dissent with that we after (Wyo.1985); Rocky Mountain Oil which, true, impossible if will ask Equalization, v. Bd. Gas Ass’n State I dissent no not be achieved. also because (Wyo.1987). 749 P.2d 221 require proper presented basis is building at the amount stated for bond I Consequently, concur in the and structure site renovation or removal general ment for the bond presently that a bond should be the additional inclusion of the dissent to constituting office remove structures building structure demolition and site reno- processing facilities. vation costs. completely It seems clear that a use for may has considered and

probably pursued by reasonably early circumstance, punitive

date. Under that provided justified amount is not Department in the

by anything found rules, regulations

Environmental agreements entered into

or executed department predecessor, either the HILL, (Defendant), Ron Corporation, Steel or the United States per- appellant. punitive, There is a present (Plaintiff). ZIMMERER, Appellee Bob created, unexpectedly spective imposition, appel- major responsibility cost for this No. 92-50. lant. Hercules Powder Co. v. State Bd. of Supreme Wyoming. Court Wyo. 208 P.2d 1096 Equalization, (1949). Pipe People also v. Platte See Oct. Co., P.2d 208 Line generally agree with the direction of

I appellant a recla-

the decision that retains responsibility for ar-

mation maintenance dams, orig- ponds

eas and other facilities stream

inally involved in where