07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 9 A group of citizens (the "Citizens") challenged the passage of Ordi- nance 454. The Cloudrock Development was located on a mesa above an aquifer that served as the "main source of culinary water for Moab, Utah." Among other things, the Citizens alleged that the amended de- velopment would injure their health because it would "result indan- gerous increases of pollution in the water delivered to their property— water they drink and use to cook and clean." CLC contended that the Citizens lacked standing to challenge the Council's passage of Ordinance 454. CLC maintained that the Citi- zens' failed to allege "a personal and particularized injury, but rather.. alleged nothing more than injuries that are common to everyone who lives within the water district served by the [aquifer]." Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court ultimately issued sum- mary judgment in favor of. CLC. The Citizens appealed. The Coures Decision: Judgment of district court reversed; matter - remanded. The Supreme Court of Utah held that the Citizens did have standing to challenge Ordinance 454. ^� The court explained that challenges to county land use decisions— such as the adoption of Ordinance 454—were governed by the Utah's County Land Use and Development Management Act ("CLUDMA"). The Citizens would have standing to challenge the Council's decision to adopt Ordinance 454 under CLUDMA if they: "(1) adequately al- leged a personal injury resulting from a land use decision"; "(2) ad- equately alleged a causal relationship between the decision and the alleged injury"; and "(3) requested relief that is substantially likely to redress the alleged injury." The court rejected CLC's argument that the Citizens failed to meet the first part of this "traditional judicial test for standing." The court said that the Citizens did not lack standing merely because they al- leged similar injuries to those others have suffered or will suffer. The Citizens were not complaining about the impact of the development on the community in general, but claimed that the development would di- rectly affect them and their families. In other words, the Citizens were "alleging private, rather than public; injuries." "That others may also share their concerns and be subject to the same specific, individualized injuries d[id] not make the potential harms any less personal to [the Citizens]." Furthermore, the court found that the Citizens' allegations that the (. j. amended development would result in dangerous increases of pollution in water they use was "an allegation of a direct and personal impact... sufficient to create the personal stake that [judicial] standing require- ments demand." The court concluded that the Citizens had standing © 2010 Thomson Reuters 5 47