## Facts

- The Town of Glocester contracted with William Davis in 1974 to operate a commercial dump on town property, later run as the Glocester Smithfield Regional Landfill spanning Glocester and Smithfield.
- Davis accepted refuse from outside Glocester through arrangements with third parties.
- Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake (a nonprofit) and nearby landowners alleged Davis deposited refuse and fill within freshwater wetlands without the permit required by the Rhode Island Fresh Water Wetlands Act.
- Plaintiffs also alleged the landfill polluted Nine Foot Brook (a tributary of Waterman Lake) and created excessive noise from truck traffic, constituting a nuisance.
- The Town intervened and, along with Citizens, asserted violations of local ordinances restricting dumping and related municipal controls.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for Davis and a town official, John Coyne, on all claims; an earlier appeal resulted in a remand for adequate findings, after which plaintiffs again appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether private parties or a municipality may sue to enforce the Fresh Water Wetlands Act when the DNR director has not initiated enforcement.
2. Whether the Act’s assignment of enforcement authority to the DNR director permits courts to infer a private or municipal cause of action.
3. Whether existing environmental law, as an implied term of the town’s contract with Davis, supports judicial relief independent of the Act’s enforcement scheme.
4. Whether the evidence required reversal of the trial court’s rejection of nuisance and ordinance-based claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgments for Davis and Coyne.
- The court held the Fresh Water Wetlands Act does not confer standing or a cause of action on private citizens or the Town to enforce the Act absent action by the DNR director.
- The court applied the statute’s plain language and declined to expand the Act’s enforcement mechanisms beyond those expressly assigned to the DNR director.
- Although existing law is an implied term of contracts and limits lawful performance, that contract principle did not create a private enforcement right under the Act.
- The court upheld the trial court’s determinations rejecting nuisance and ordinance-based claims, deferring to clarified findings and credibility determinations made after remand.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, courts apply it as written and do not add enforcement rights or remedies not provided by the legislature.
- Where a regulatory statute vests enforcement authority in a designated public official or agency, courts will not infer a private or municipal cause of action without explicit authorization.
- Existing statutes and regulations are implied terms of every contract; parties cannot enforce a contract in a manner that requires or authorizes illegal conduct, but this does not create new statutory causes of action.
- Appellate review of fact-finding in a bench trial is deferential; credibility determinations and supported findings are not disturbed absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed defense judgments, holding that enforcement of the Fresh Water Wetlands Act is committed to the DNR director and cannot be pursued by private plaintiffs or the Town through an implied cause of action, and it sustained the trial court’s rejection of nuisance and local-ordinance theories based on the record and clarified findings.


Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. Davis, 420 A.2d 53 (R.I. 1980)