Compelling Administrative Action: Mandamus to Enforce Board’s Duty to Review Petroleum Tank Cleanup Claims

Introduction

Cascade County v. Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board (2025 MT 119) addresses a long-running dispute over reimbursement for remediation of petroleum contamination under County-owned tanks. The County completed corrective work under a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) plan in 2008 and submitted four separate reimbursement applications in 2014. The Board refused to review three of them, asserting that claims must be tied to distinct DEQ release numbers. The County sought an alternative writ of mandate to compel the Board to act. The Supreme Court of Montana granted relief, holding that under § 75-11-309(2), MCA, the Board has a clear, ministerial duty to review every reimbursement claim received, and that failing to do so deprived the County of any adequate legal remedy.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Laurie McKinnon, writing for a unanimous Court, reversed the District Court’s denial of mandamus. The Supreme Court found:

• Section 75-11-309(2), MCA, imposes a non-discretionary duty on the Board to “review each claim received” and “affirmatively determine” whether costs are eligible for reimbursement.
• The Board’s refusal to assess claims based on a newly adopted administrative rule (Admin. R. M. 17.58.325(2))—which postdated the County’s submissions—was an improper exercise of discretion amounting to non-action.
• The County had no other “speedy and adequate remedy” until the Board reviews its applications and makes determinations, triggering the County’s right to a contested hearing and judicial review under MAPA.
• Mandamus is therefore appropriate to compel the Board to review and decide the County’s submitted claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s ruling draws on a line of Montana authority concerning writs of mandamus and administrative duty:

• Beasley v. Flathead County Board of Adjustments (2009): Defined “ministerial act” as one prescribed by law with “precision and certainty,” leaving no discretion. The Court applied this definition to the Board’s duty to review claims.
• Paradise Rainbows v. Fish & Game Commission (1966): Held that mandamus lies to compel proper exercise of delegated power when discretion is abused or withheld. The Board’s blanket refusal amounted to “no exercise of discretion at all.”
• Common Cause v. Argenbright (1996): Compelled an agency to initiate rulemaking when refusal deprived parties of administrative or judicial remedies. Similarly, here the Board’s inaction blocked any remedy for the County.
• Belgrade Educ. Ass’n v. Belgrade School Dist. (2004): Confirmed the standard for reviewing denial of mandamus as a question of law (“correctness”).

Legal Reasoning

The pivotal statutory provision is § 75-11-309, MCA. Subsection (1)(f) requires owners to document expenses “in the manner required by the Board.” Subsection (2) commands the Board to “review each claim,” make statutorily prescribed determinations, inform the claimant, and reimburse “as appropriate.”

The Board argued that its rule requiring each claim to correspond to a unique DEQ release number (administrative Rule 17.58.325(2)) prevented it from reviewing the County’s three additional requests, since DEQ had only assigned one number. The Court rejected this retroactive application of the new rule to claims filed in 2014, relying on the rulemaking effective-date statute (§ 2-4-306(4), MCA). Even if the County’s forms diverged from the Board’s desired format, that would justify denial after review but not refusal to review altogether. Under Montana mandamus law ( §§ 27-26-102 & 27-26-102(2), MCA), once a clear ministerial duty is demonstrated and no other remedy exists, the writ must issue.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces several key principles in administrative and environmental law:

• Statutory mandates for agency action—even if labeled “discretionary”—are ministerial when the statute specifies duties with precision.
• Agencies cannot refuse to process filings on procedural grounds that conflict with claimants’ reliance on prior rules or long-standing practices.
• Plaintiffs have recourse by mandamus when administrative inaction deprives them of MAPA hearings and judicial review.
• The decision underscores the importance of clear documentation requirements but prevents agencies from effectively nullifying existing claims with after-the-fact rule changes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: A court order compelling a government body to perform a clear legal duty. Unlike appeals, mandamus addresses inaction or failure to follow the law.

Ministerial vs. Discretionary Acts: A ministerial act is one the law spells out in detail—no judgment calls allowed. A discretionary act grants the agency leeway. Here, reviewing every claim under § 75-11-309(2) is ministerial.

MAPA (Montana Administrative Procedure Act): Establishes how state agencies adopt rules and how the public challenges agency decisions. A claimant must exhaust administrative remedies (hearings, appeals) before seeking judicial review.

Conclusion

Cascade County v. Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board clarifies that when a statute requires an agency to review and decide submitted claims in specified terms, the agency must comply or face mandamus. The Montana Supreme Court thus secured the County’s right to a determination on its reimbursement applications—ensuring environmental cleanup claimants cannot be stonewalled by procedural or retroactive rule changes. The ruling strengthens administrative accountability and preserves claimants’ path to hearing and judicial review under MAPA.