State ex rel. Pollution Control Coordinating Board v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission
This text of 1983 OK 3 (State ex rel. Pollution Control Coordinating Board v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The dispositive question presented is whether the Corporation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over slush pit pollution or if oversight is vested in the Pollution Control Coordinating Board [PCCB]. This case arose as the result of an appeal from the order of the PCCB to the district court which found that exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the Corporation Commission.
After the appeal was lodged by the PCCB, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the amendment of 63 O.S.Supp.1978 § 2756 [recodified as 63 O.S. 1981 § 1-2005(A)(2) ]1 unequivocably vests the Corporation Commission with exclusive [1043]*1043jurisdiction and that the appeal should be dismissed because it is moot. The Commission also argues that despite statutory evolution, the Corporation Commission has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction over all oil and gas matters since 1917, when 17 O.S.1981 § 52 was codified.2 This statute is the touchstone for the rationale that exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Corporation Commission. It provides that all authority concerning the drilling and operating of oil and gas well is exclusively conferred on the Commission. This statute has not been amended or repealed since 1917; however, other statutes have been enacted which define specific areas of jurisdiction.
In 1955, 52 O.S.Supp.1955 § 139 was adopted, vesting the Commission with prevention of pollution of surface and subsurface waters. Although § 139 was amended in 1965, the Commission is still charged with this duty.3 At the same time that § 139 was enacted, the Legislature also enacted 52 O.S.Supp.1955 § 140 which gave the Commission the right, after hearing, to prohibit the storage of deleterious substances in earthen ponds if pollution is occurring or likely to occur. The subsequent 1965 amendment did not alter this right.4
The Pollution Control Coordinating Act promulgated in 1968, 82 O.S.1981 § 933, stated that the water pollution prevention and control responsibilities of the state agencies represented by the respective membership of the board of the Department of Pollution Control5 “shall remain as provided by law” and the Act “shall not be construed as modifying or lessening any requirements, authority or responsibility of any agency of the state in the discharge of its duties as prescribed by law for preventing or controlling pollution.”6 Pursuant to 82 O.S.1971 § 938, the Act is not to be construed as repealing any laws of the state relating to the pollution of waters or any conservation laws but it is to be construed as auxiliary and supplementary.7 Title 82 [1044]*1044O.S.Supp.1974 § 932.2(B)(6) requires the director of the Board to establish and maintain a system for pollution violation reports and to refer reported violations to the proper agency for investigation and remedy.8 Section 936(c) requires the Board to refer a copy of any pollution complaint to the agency which has primary jurisdiction.9
The circumstances under which the Board may assume jurisdiction are limited. In accordance with 82 O.S.1971 § 936, any pollution complaint which is filed with the PCCB must be docketed, assigned a number and then referred immediately “to the agency or agencies having primary jurisdiction.” The PCCB may proceed: (1) if it finds a violation of any regulation or order of the PCCB or member agency; (2) if it finds that the agency having primary jurisdiction has “failed, refused or neglected to take action;” or (3) the agency having primary jurisdiction requests, the PCCB to take action. None of these criteria are present.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission has continuously been reaffirmed by the Legislature. In 1974, the enactment of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code, specifically 29 O.S.Supp. 1974 § 7 — 101(C), mandated that a pollution violation caused by petroleum drilling, production, transmission, or storage was to be reported to the Corporation Commission. The Commission was given the express power to order corrective action.10
It is readily apparent that the Commission has exclusive statutory authority in the area of conservation of oil and gas and the drilling and operation of oil and gas wells.11 Title 63 O.S.Supp.1976 § 2756 provided that any substance resulting from or used in conjunction with oil and gas exploration, development or production shall continue to be regulated by the Corporation Commission. The statute, as amended in 1978, vests the Commission with exclusive jurisdiction, power and authority governing the disposition of deleterious substances incidental to petroleum production and to promulgate rules and regulations to prevent pollution of the surface and subsurface waters in the state. This statute, and all prior analagous statutes are merely cumulative and predicated on the foundation laid in 1917 by 17 O.S.1981 § 52 reposing all authority concerning petroleum production in the Corporation Commission.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1983 OK 3, 660 P.2d 1042, 19 ERC 1164, 76 Oil & Gas Rep. 107, 19 ERC (BNA) 1164, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-pollution-control-coordinating-board-v-oklahoma-corp-okla-1983.