DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1565 C.D. 1975
Judges: Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
Filed Date: 5/21/1976
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
This appeal is from an order from the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) affirming an order of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) requiring Joseph C. Delenick, doing business as St. Clair Sanitary Landfill, (appellant), to cease operation of his landfill and follow certain termination procedures for want of having a landfill permit.
The facts of this case may be summarily recited. Appellant has operated the landfill in question since approximately 1960. Appellant does not have, nor has he ever had, a permit to operate said landfill as required by Section 7(a) of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act
In his appeal to EHB, appellant offered no evidence whatsoever that the permit requirements of the Act are unduly oppressive or burdensome, nor did he offer any evidence that the operative provisions of the Act con
Notwithstanding the want of such critical evidence to support the heavy burden of proof required of one who challenges the constitutionality of a statute,
Assuming appellant means that to find constitutional validity to the permit requirement of a statute adopted under the police power one has a right to operate without a permit absent proof of a violation of the substantive provisions of the statute, appellant’s argument is void of any supporting authority and specious. Given a statute enacted pursuant to the police power, into which category the act in question clearly fits, one’s property rights are subordinated to its proper and lawful exercise. White’s Appeal, 287 Pa. 259, 134 A. 409 (1926) ; Shomo, supra note 2.
Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Harmar Coal Company, 452 Pa. 77, 306 A.2d 308 (1973) as setting forth the standards to be applied in this case. Harmar does indeed speak to the standards to be applied in determing whether the government has lawfully exercised the police power, but nothing said in that decision supports appellant here. To the contrary, if this appeal is meant to
Order
Now, May 21, 1976, the order of the Environmental Hearing Board is hereby affirmed.
. Act of July 31, 1968, P. L. 788, as amended, 35 P. S. §6007(a).
. One who challenges the constitutionality of acts of the General Assembly is faced with their presumptive constitutionality, Daly v. Hemphill, 41 Pa. 263, 191 A.2d 835 (1963); Hetherington v. McHale, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 501, 311 A.2d 162 (1793); all doubt must be resolved in favor of sustaining legislation, Milk Control Commission v. Battista, 413 Pa. 652, 198 A.2d 840 (1964); Commonwealth v. Staley, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 193, 344 A.2d 748 (1975) ; and it is a heavy burden on those who would make such challenge, Philadelphia v. Depuy, 431 Pa. 276, 244 A.2d 741 (1968) ; Shomo v. Derry Borough, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 216, 289 A.2d 513 (1972).