|
No. 130802, 130803
| Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, R. J. |
|
James M. Olson |
| Doyle, Barbara Doyle, Jeffrey R. Sapp and |
|
Scott W. Howard |
| Shelly M. Sapp, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Mecosta - Root, L.) |
|
|
| Nestle´ Waters North America Inc., |
|
John M. DeVries |
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, |
|
Fredric N. Goldberg |
| and |
|
|
| Donald Patrick Bollman and Nancy Gale |
|
|
| Bollman, a/k/a Pat Bollman Enterprises, |
|
|
| Defendants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees' Errata Sheets>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees' Brief in Response>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees' Response to Cross-Application>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees' Supplemental Brief >>
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan Chamber of Commerce's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc.'s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Manufacturers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Network of Lake Associations, Burt Lake Preservation Association and Pickerel-Crooked Lakes Association's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Amicus Curiae Brief>>
National Wildlife Federation, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council,
Pickerel-Crooked Lakes Association, and Burt Lake Preservation Association's
Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
In 2000, Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., the predecessor in interest of Nestlé Waters of North America, began taking steps to construct a spring-water bottling plant in Mecosta County. In December 2000, Nestlé purchased the groundwater rights to property in an area known as Sanctuary Springs. Shortly after Nestlé announced its plans to build its spring-water bottling plant, the nonprofit corporation Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation was formed to represent the interests of local riparian property owners and other interested persons. Nestlé installed four wells on the Sanctuary Springs site and obtained permits to use the wells from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The combined maximum pumping rate permitted for the four wells is 400 gallons per minute. In the summer of 2001, Nestlé began to construct its bottling plant. In June 2001, Michigan Citizens, joined later by several individual plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit challenging Nestlé’s right to build and operate the spring-water bottling plant. At a 2003 trial, the court determined that Nestlé’s operations would have a harmful impact on the environment near the Sanctuary Springs site and ruled that Nestlé had to stop all pumping operations within 21 days. Nestlé appealed, and the Court of Appeals issued an order staying implementation of the trial court’s 21-day deadline, although the appeals court ordered Nestlé to limit pumping to 250 gallons per minute. In a later published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed part of the trial court’s ruling, concluding that trial court applied the wrong legal standard when it analyzed whether Nestlé could operate its spring-water bottling plant. The Court of Appeals then applied what it determined was the proper standard, and ruled that Nestlé could pump some amount of water while still leaving adequate water supply for the plaintiffs’ various uses. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court, directing it to make additional factual findings in order to determine what level of pumping would be reasonable. A dissenting judge would have held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring certain claims under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). But the Court of Appeals majority disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs had standing as to all the natural resources at issue because of the nature of the ecosystem, the hydrologic interactions, and the pumping activities that were affecting the resources in question. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant have appealed. The Supreme Court has directed the parties to appear for oral argument on the applications, and to file supplemental briefs addressing only whether the plaintiffs have standing under National Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 471 Mich 608 (2004), to bring certain of their claims. In National Wildlife, a majority of the Court stated that, in order to sue under MEPA, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered or will suffer direct harm from an environmental problem.
Top of Page
|
