## Facts

- Kinzua Resources, LLC held a 2006 permit from Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to operate the Pilot Rock Landfill for waste from an adjacent sawmill.
- The landfill later became inactive, and Kinzua did not complete statutory closure requirements under Oregon solid waste laws.
- Oregon statutes require that when an inactive disposal site is not properly closed by the permit holder, “persons owning or controlling the land on which the disposal site is located” must carry out closure. (ORS 459.205; ORS 459.268).
- Kinzua was a manager-managed LLC with two members, Frontier Resources, LLC and ATR Services, Inc.; Gregory M. Demers was a principal connected to those entities.
- The Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) issued a final order finding Kinzua violated closure requirements and concluding Frontier, ATR, and Demers were persons “controlling” the site, imposing closure obligations and penalties.
- EQC interpreted “controlling” to include persons with legal authority to control the site, even absent proof of day-to-day operational management.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, construing “controlling” to mean only persons actively involved in operating or managing the landfill.
- DEQ and EQC sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court, which granted review limited to the meaning of “controlling” in ORS 459.205 and ORS 459.268.

## Issues

1. Under ORS 459.205 and ORS 459.268, does “persons owning or controlling” include persons with legal authority to control a landfill site even if they did not actively operate or manage it?
2. Was EQC’s interpretation of “controlling” as including legal authority permissible under the statutes’ text, context, and purpose?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court held that “controlling” includes persons with the legal authority to control the landfill site, whether or not that authority was exercised.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ contrary statutory construction.
- The Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to address remaining challenges to the EQC order under the correct legal standard.

## Legal Principles

- In ORS 459.205 and ORS 459.268, “controlling” is not limited to active, day-to-day operational management; it also reaches persons who possess legal authority to control the site.
- Statutory context and purpose supporting closure of inactive landfills favor identifying responsible parties based on meaningful legal power over the site, to avoid gaps in accountability when a permit holder fails to close.
- An agency’s interpretation consistent with statutory text, context, and purpose is permissible; a reviewing court errs by substituting a narrower construction that the legislature did not require.

## Conclusion

The court construed Oregon’s landfill-closure statutes to assign closure duties and potential penalties not only to those who actively manage an inactive landfill, but also to those who have legal authority to control the property, and it returned the case for further review consistent with that standard.


Kinzua Resources, LLC v. Or. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 366 Or. 674, 468 P.3d 410 (Or. 2020)