CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 15, 1999 | 523 S.E.2d 879, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 4112
...nmental action which may significantly adversely affect the quality of the environment” and, even if it did, the decision of the responsible government official did not create a cause of action on behalf of the two plaintiff corporations. See OCGA §
12-16-5 (c)....
...cretion, and the decision to proceed with the proposed governmental action did not create a cause of action in the plaintiffs. Id. This Court granted appellants’ application for discretionary review and posed the following questions:
1. Does OCGA §
12-16-5 (c) bar plaintiffs’ action challenging the decision of the responsible government official that the proposed governmental action at issue was not a “proposed governmental action which may significantly adversely affect the quality of the environment?”
2. If OCGA §
12-16-5 (c) does not bar the action, what remedy is available for plaintiffs to challenge the responsible government official’s determination that a proposed governmental action is not one which may significantly adversely affect the environment’s quality?
3....
...le to the public upon request; and hold a public hearing if, within 30 days of the publication of the notice in the legal organ, the responsible official receives written requests for a hearing from at least 100 Georgia residents. OCGA §§
12-16-4;
12-16-5....
...d governmental action was not a “proposed governmental action which may significantly adversely affect the quality of the environment.” The initial question we must address is whether appellants’ suit contesting that decision is barred by OCGA §
12-16-5 (c), which states:
The decision of the responsible official to proceed with the proposed governmental action shall not create a cause of action in any person, corporation, association, county, or municipal corporation; provided, however,...
...Where, as here, a statute “is plain and susceptible of but one natural and reasonable construction, the court has no authority to place a different construction upon it, but must construe it according to its terms.” Hollowell v. Jove,
247 Ga. 678, 681 (279 SE2d 430) (1981). Accordingly, we conclude that OCGA §
12-16-5 (c) bars appellants’ lawsuit, and the trial court did not err when it dismissed that portion of appellants’ complaint which sought to challenge the responsible official’s decision to proceed with the project.4
Our holding that OCGA §
12-16-5 (c) bars appellants’ challenge to the responsible official’s decision that the proposed government action is not one from which it is probable to expect a significant adverse impact on the environment is supported by the additional language in OCGA §
12-16-5 (c), which limits the scope of a permissible legal challenge under GEPA and sets out the time period within *761which such a challenge must be filed. The statute authorizes a legal challenge only to the procedure followed by the responsible official in giving the notices required by OCGA §§
12-16-4 (c) and
12-16-5 (b) after the official has determined that the proposed governmental action may significantly adversely affect the quality of the environment....
...after the responsible official’s decision that forms the basis of appellants’ complaint, leaving us to conclude that the statute shields the responsible official’s initial decision from judicial review.
In light of our determination that OCGA §
12-16-5 (c) bars appellants’ suit, we do not address the remaining questions we posed in granting appellants’ application for discretionary review since they were dependent upon an initial resolution that §
12-16-5 (c) did not bar appellants’ suit.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, J, who dissents.
OCGA §
12-16-3 defines the applicable terms as follows:
(1) “A proposed governmental action which may significantly a...
