ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
St. Regis Paper Company challenged a Pollution Control Board order finding it violated water quality rules by discharging color-causing materials that created a nuisance, despite the absence of economically feasible elimination methods. The court upheld the Board's order, holding that a nuisance can exist independently of economic feasibility, and affirmed the Board's balanced approach allowing continued mill operation pending technological development.
A nuisance may exist regardless of whether an economically feasible method to eliminate it exists. The Board's findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Board's order was reasonable as it did not require mill shutdown but allowed continued operation pending technological development and required studies to address the coloration problem.
[1] A nuisance may exist regardless of whether there is an economically feasible method to eliminate the condition causing the nuisance.
[2] A finding of a violation of an administrative rule is supported by competent, substantial evidence if the record substantiates the finding and conclusion of the administr…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A nuisance may exist regardless of whether or not there is an economically feasible method to eliminate it.”
The court's central holding establishing that economic feasibility is not a prerequisite to finding a nuisance exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSt. Regis operated a pulp and paper mill at Cantonment, Florida that discharged materials producing color in state waters. The Pollution Control Board…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Pollution Control Board of the State of Florida relative to waste water discharges from petitioner’s pulp and paper mill at Cantonment, Florida. The order of respondent adopted its hearing examiner’s report, findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations. The controversy here surrounds the conclusions of law relative to a coloration problem as follows:
“The Respondent [petitioner here] is guilty of a violation of Department Rule 17-3.02(3), Florida Administrative Code, in that it is, and has been, discharging materials into the affected waters ‘producing color ... in such degree as to create a nuisance.’ However, inasmuch as the record conclusively demonstrates that there is no known ecomoni-cally feasible method to eliminate the color-causing materials, the proposed Orders for Corrective Action will be tempered accordingly.”
Petitioner contends that it is incongruous for respondent to find that it is creating a nuisance inasmuch as respondent also finds that there is no known economically feasible method to eliminate the color causing materials; that its actions do not constitute the creation of a nuisance under such circumstances; that the finding of respondent is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We have examined the record and briefs of counsel and do not agree with petitioner’s contention. A nuisance may exist regardless of whether or not there is an economically feasible method to eliminate it. The record substantiates the finding and conclusion of respondent and is supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Respondent’s order is reasonable. It does not order the shutting down of petitioner’s mill but allows the continued operation of the mill pending research and development for technological improvement and it orders studies and reports designed to fully explore means of effecting a cure of the water coloration problem.
The petition for certiorari is denied without prejudice to petitioner to again seek review of further enforcement orders of respondent with which it may be aggrieved.
RAWLS, C. J„ and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.