Introduction

The case of CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, and mountaintrue versus NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, along with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, Inc., adjudicated by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on June 11, 2015, represents a pivotal moment in the application of environmental regulations to coal ash lagoons. This litigation centered on whether changes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly, specifically Chapter 122 of the 2014 North Carolina Session Laws, effectively superseded existing groundwater protection rules as they applied to coal ash lagoons at facilities with active permits.

The key issues revolved around the interpretation and applicability of the Commission’s groundwater protection rules, the impact of newly enacted legislation on these rules, and the resulting implications for environmental compliance and remediation actions by power generation facilities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed whether the trial court had erred in reversing a portion of a declaratory ruling issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on December 18, 2012. The Commission had clarified the application of groundwater protection rules (15A NCAC 2L) to coal ash lagoons, deeming certain pre-1983 permitted facilities as “deemed not permitted” and thus subject to specific corrective actions under Rule .0106(c).

The petitioner groups sought judicial review, contesting the Commission’s interpretation of the regulations. During litigation, the General Assembly enacted Chapter 122, known as the "Coal Ash Management Act," which amended relevant statutory provisions concerning coal ash lagoon management and groundwater protection.

The Supreme Court concluded that Chapter 122 superseded the existing groundwater protection rules as they pertained to coal ash lagoons with active permits. Consequently, the issues raised in the petition were rendered moot. The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal based on mootness grounds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment references several key precedents to support its decision. Notably:

• MESSER v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL: Emphasizes that courts dismiss cases when the issues presented become moot during litigation.
• State ex rel. N.C. Milk Comm'n v. Nat'l Food Stores, Inc.: Clarifies that legislative intent, as expressed by lawmakers, does not constitute competent evidence for judicial determination of statutory meanings.
• Mussa v. Palmer–Mussa: Establishes that unchallenged factual findings by a trial court are binding on appellate courts.
• IN RE PEOPLES and N.C. STATE BAR v. RANDOLPH: Discuss the limited circumstances under which courts may consider moot issues, particularly when public interest is high.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Court's stance on dismissing the case due to mootness, despite the public interest involved.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning hinged on several factors:

• Supremacy of Legislation: The enactment of Chapter 122 by the General Assembly effectively overruled the existing Groundwater Rules concerning coal ash lagoons with active NPDES permits. The new statute provided a unified and updated framework for managing groundwater contamination, thereby rendering the previous regulations inapplicable.
• Mootness Doctrine: According to established legal principles, when appellate issues become moot—meaning there is no longer a live controversy—the court must dismiss the case. Here, since Chapter 122 addressed the core issues raised by petitioners, the original disputes no longer existed.
• Binding Factual Findings: The trial court had found that all coal ash lagoons in question held active permits, and there was no evidence of closed or inactive lagoons. This made petitioners' third request moot, further supporting the dismissal.
• Judicial Restraint: Even though environmental concerns are of significant public interest, the Court adhered to judicial restraint, choosing not to issue advisory opinions on matters now governed by legislative action.

The Court meticulously analyzed the interplay between regulatory rules and legislative amendments, ultimately determining that the legislative changes addressed and superseded the regulatory framework initially under dispute.

Impact

This Judgment has several notable impacts:

• Legislative Supremacy: Reinforces the principle that clear legislative enactments can override existing administrative regulations, providing a clearer and more comprehensive legal framework.
• Regulatory Clarity for Coal Ash Lagoons: Facilities with active NPDES permits now follow the mandates of Chapter 122, which standardizes corrective actions across all such facilities, irrespective of their permit issuance dates.
• Judicial Efficiency: Demonstrates the Court’s adherence to the mootness doctrine, ensuring that judicial resources are not expended on issues resolved through legislative means.
• Environmental Compliance: Powers the transition towards more stringent and uniform groundwater protection measures, potentially leading to better environmental outcomes.

Future cases involving groundwater contamination from coal ash lagoons will reference this Judgment to understand the precedence of legislative changes over existing regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mootness

Mootness refers to a legal doctrine where courts will not decide cases that no longer present a live controversy or where resolving the dispute would have no practical impact. In this case, the enactment of Chapter 122 rendered the original issues submitted by the petitioners irrelevant, as the new law addressed and resolved those issues.

Declaratory Ruling

A declaratory ruling is a court statement that clarifies the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. The petitioners sought such a ruling to clarify how existing groundwater protection rules applied to coal ash lagoons.

NPDES Permit

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a federal permit program that controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Facilities with these permits must adhere to specific environmental standards to prevent groundwater contamination.

Chapter 122 – Coal Ash Management Act

Chapter 122 refers to a legislative act passed by the North Carolina General Assembly, known as the "Coal Ash Management Act." This statute updates and consolidates regulations related to the management of coal ash lagoons, including standardized corrective actions for groundwater contamination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision in CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION et al. underscores the paramount importance of legislative action in shaping and overriding existing regulatory frameworks. By recognizing the enactment of Chapter 122 as superseding prior groundwater protection rules, the Court affirmed the role of the legislature in addressing environmental concerns comprehensively.

This Judgment not only resolves the immediate dispute by rendering the issues moot but also sets a clear precedent for how future legislative changes can impact ongoing and potential regulatory matters. Environmental groups, regulatory agencies, and industrial entities must stay attuned to legislative developments to ensure compliance and effectively advocate for environmental protections.

Ultimately, this case illustrates the dynamic interplay between the judiciary and legislature in the realm of environmental law, highlighting the necessity for cohesive and adaptive regulatory strategies to safeguard natural resources.