Summit Hydropower Partnership v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection
226 Conn. 792, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 256, 629 A.2d 367 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative proceeding is a 'contested case' subject to judicial review under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) only when a statute requires the agency to determine a party's legal rights or privileges in a hearing. The mere fact that an agency voluntarily holds a hearing, without a statutory mandate to do so, does not create a contested case.
Facts:
- Summit Hydropower Partnership (Summit) proposed to construct a hydroelectric facility on the Quinebaug River at Cargill Falls in Putnam, Connecticut.
- Cargill Falls is a scenic and historic landmark considered a focal point of the community.
- The proposed project involved a tailrace that would divert the river's flow through a powerhouse, which defendants feared would dry up the falls.
- In September 1988, Summit applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to build the project.
- Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (§ 401), Summit also requested a water quality certification from the Connecticut department of environmental protection, a prerequisite for the federal license.
- In August 1989, the commissioner of environmental protection denied the certification, concluding the project would adversely affect the river's designated uses, including recreational and aesthetic quality.
- The commissioner offered to hold a public hearing on the denial, which was subsequently held with the participation of Summit and the town of Putnam.
Procedural Posture:
- Summit Hydropower Partnership filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court from the commissioner's final decision denying its request for water quality certification.
- The commissioner and the town of Putnam filed a motion to dismiss in the Superior Court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the proceeding was not a 'contested case.'
- The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The Superior Court sustained Summit's appeal and directed the commissioner to issue the water quality certificate.
- The commissioner and the town of Putnam, as appellants, appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of Connecticut before a hearing in the Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an administrative proceeding a 'contested case' under General Statutes § 4-166 (2), creating a right to judicial review, when the agency is not statutorily required to hold a hearing, even if a hearing is in fact held at the agency's discretion?
Opinions:
Majority - Callahan, J.
No. An administrative proceeding is not a 'contested case' with a right to judicial review unless a statute requires the agency to determine a party's rights in a hearing. The court held that judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by the UAPA, which allows appeals only from a 'final decision in a contested case.' The court applied the three-part test from Herman v. Division of Special Revenue to define a contested case, emphasizing that a hearing must be statutorily required. After examining the relevant federal and state statutes, including § 401 of the Clean Water Act, the court found they authorized the commissioner to hold hearings but did not mandate them. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase 'or in which a hearing is in fact held' does not create a contested case from a gratuitous hearing, as this would discourage agencies from holding informal, information-gathering hearings. Because no statute required the commissioner to hold a hearing for a § 401 certification, the proceeding was not a contested case, and the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the jurisdictional requirements for appealing administrative agency decisions in Connecticut. It establishes a bright-line rule that the right to judicial review under the UAPA hinges on a statutory mandate for a hearing, not on an agency's discretionary choice to conduct one. This holding prevents agencies from inadvertently subjecting themselves to judicial review by holding voluntary public hearings, thereby preserving their administrative flexibility. It also reinforces that the legislature, not the agencies, defines the scope of judicial review, forcing aggrieved parties in non-mandated hearing situations to seek other remedies like declaratory rulings.
