Spring Creek Conservation Coalition v. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
2007 OK CIV APP 26, 2006 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 155, 156 P.3d 55 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's rule-making process must substantially comply with all statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, including fully considering public comments and providing a proper summary of comments and resulting changes when submitting rules for approval.
Facts:
- The Oklahoma Legislature enacted a statute (29 O.S. 2002 § 6-504 (A)) stating that no person shall release fish into public waters whose stocking is controlled by the Wildlife Conservation Commission without the Director's consent.
- Over several years, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission (collectively, Commission) received requests to stock fish in Spring Creek.
- In the fall of 2003, the Commission began developing a protocol under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for fish introduction permit requests and other rules.
- Public meetings were held and comments were gathered in early 2004 on the proposed rules.
- Employees of the Commission prepared summaries of these public comments.
- The Commission members were not routinely provided with these full summaries unless specifically requested; instead, they received a statement that 'the majority of the comments were in favor of the proposals.'
- The Commission adopted a rule, OAC § 800:20-2-2, addressing fish introduction into state waters.
- When submitting the adopted permanent rule to the Governor and Legislature for approval, the Commission's rule report summarized comments as: 'The consensus from those attending was in favor of all recommendations, except for the proposal to make it illegal to fillet fish on the water,' lacking an explanation of changes or lack thereof due to testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- The Spring Creek Conservation Coalition (Coalition) filed an action for declaratory relief in the trial court against the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission (Commission).
- The Coalition argued the process to adopt OAC § 800:20-2-2 violated the APA, that the Commission had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and that the Commission's actions were in contravention of its goals.
- The Coalition moved for summary judgment in its favor.
- The trial court granted the Coalition's motion for summary judgment, finding the rule void and invalid, enjoining the Commission from taking further action under the rule or issuing permits for the introduction of fish into Spring Creek, and retaining jurisdiction over the matter pending adoption of a new rule.
- The Commission, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in finding the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's fish introduction rule (OAC § 800:20-2-2) invalid because its promulgation process failed to substantially comply with the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in finding OAC § 800:20-2-2 invalid, enjoining action under it, and retaining jurisdiction. The rule-making process did not substantially comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. The court reasoned that under 75 O.S.2001 § 303(A)(2), an agency must 'consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule.' The Commission's practice of providing members only with employee-prepared summaries, and only if requested, and merely stating that 'the majority of the comments were in favor of the proposals,' did not satisfy this requirement. This filtering by employees usurped the Commission members' statutory duty to fully consider comments, rendering public hearings a nullity. Furthermore, 75 O.S.2001 § 303.1(E)(3) requires an agency's rule report to the Governor and Legislature to include a summary of comments and an explanation of changes (or lack thereof) made due to testimony. The Commission's report, which broadly stated 'the consensus...was in favor of all recommendations, except...' and lacked any explanation of changes, fell 'far short' of this statutory mandate. The court concluded that the employed rule-making process was inherently flawed and did not constitute substantial compliance with the APA, rendering the fish introduction rule invalid. The trial court's order was affirmed as modified; the appellate court reversed portions of the trial court's order that addressed the specific provisions of the rule itself, as that analysis was moot once the rule was found improperly promulgated.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in administrative rule-making, particularly concerning public participation. It clarifies that merely holding public hearings is insufficient; the decision-making body itself must directly and fully consider public comments, preventing employees from acting as gatekeepers. The ruling underscores that statutory mandates for reporting on public input are not mere formalities but essential safeguards, ensuring transparency and accountability in the administrative process. This case serves as a precedent for challenging agency rules on procedural grounds, emphasizing that substantive compliance with the APA is paramount for a rule's validity.
