|
Wetlands Agricultural Exemption Upheld
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upholds constitutionality of agricultural exemption in Wetlands Protection Act & reinstates indictments vs. Quirk Trust, Mansfield property owner
 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently upheld the constitutionality of the Legislature's delegation to MassDEP of the responsibility to define "agricultural exemption" as it applies under the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). The SJC also upheld indictments against the defendants in this case, Quirk Trust LLC and Karl D. Clemmey of Mansfield, and sent their cases back to Superior Court.
Initially, this matter began as an investigation into activities on a portion of property owned by Quirk Trust - a trust affiliated with Clemmey. In 2000, the Trust purchased a swath of property in Mansfield on land that clearly encompassed a significant amount of wetlands, including a stream and upland fields, as well as a house, barn and other outbuildings.
In its indictments, the Commonwealth asserted that Clemmey had illegally altered 5.8 acres of wetlands subject to the WPA by filling land, and cutting and clearing trees, plants, and shrubs on the property. Clemmey alleged that these alterations were not subject to the WPA because he intended to establish a horse farm and that the property had previously been used for farming. Affidavits submitted by neighbors and town officials, however, indicated that no farming had occurred on this property in 10 or more years.
The Court's Analysis of the Case
Clemmey and the Trust challenged the state's indictments, arguing that by delegating to MassDEP the authority to define the terms of the agricultural exemption, the Massachusetts Legislature had violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.
The SJC in its decision concluded that the WPA does not violate the separation of powers, noting that, while the Legislature cannot delegate the power to make laws, the separation between the three branches of government is not an "absolute division," and furthermore that "the question of whether a specific delegation of power violates the Constitution is a question of degree."
The SJC also concluded that the Legislature in this instance clearly set out the policy decision that it wanted MassDEP to implement. Namely, to balance the interests of environmental protection and agriculture in a way that protected "routine and long-standing farm operations." The court noted that the statute, as amended, made clear that the Legislature intended this agricultural exemption to apply to land currently "in" agricultural use. Also, that the Legislature specifically directed MassDEP to seek input from the farmland advisory committee on what farming activities should be included, and for MassDEP to delineate and identify what these activities are through regulation.
Finally, the SJC noted the presence of other safeguards in the statute, including: the need for commissioner approval; uniform definitions; submission to the legislative committee; and the availability of judicial review. All told, the SJC concluded that due process is satisfied, writing that, "a person of ordinary intelligence would properly be on notice of what conduct falls within the statutory exemption as further detailed in the regulations, especially where the statue itself directs the reader to the applicable regulations."
To view more information on this case, go to: http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=16328&sid=120
Print friendly version of this article: Web page |
communicate with dep
