Holmes v. Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc.

ALPERT, Judge. In this, the final decade of the twentieth century, we are witness to the ceaseless changes in the law that have occurred over the past nine decades. Against the background of widespread social change, we have overhauled and augmented much of the law that prevailed at the turn of the century. There came a timé when we had to reckon with the newest social problem to demand the center of the stage, the problem of mankind and the ¹²³ physical environment.

Air and water pollution, urban squeeze, and other symptoms of distress were old enough; there had always been voices crying in and for the wilderness. But the voices became more strident from the 1960s on. A real sense of doom began hanging over this small and limited world. Many sources fed the ecological movement____ [T]he crisis was real.

Resources were not infinite. Big business was poisoning the rivers and darkening the air; lumber companies were chopping down irreplaceable trees; cities were pouring tons of muck into lakes and oceans; highway engineers were driving concrete paths through pieces of the American heart and heritage. L. Friedman, A History of American Law, 680 (1973). Recognizing the destruction, the public pressed for legal action to preserve and manage the planet’s scarce and threatened resources. jji J(t ^8 ijt lj{ This case involves a proposed rubble landfill in Harford County.

The principal issue is whether the state laws governing landfills preclude Harford County, in the guise of removing the proposed landfill site from its Solid Waste Management Plan, from substituting itself for the state in the permit review process. The Circuit Court for Harford County (Whitfill, J.) entered a judgment against the Harford County Council, which the Council now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Maryland Reclamation Associates (hereinafter MRA) wishes to establish in Harford County a landfill for receiving rubble deposits.

In late August, 1989, MRA contracted to purchase property located on Gravel Hill Road, Harford County. The land had been mined extensively since the mid-1950s, pursuant to a valid surface mining permit issued by the State of Maryland for a 7.39 acre portion of the property. The state also had issued an industrial waste management permit covering a twenty eight acre portion of ¹²⁴ the property, allowing interment of broken concrete, tree stumps, and brush. This section of the property had been used as a rubble fill for more than four years.

MRA applied to the Maryland Department of the Environment (hereinafter MDE) for its approval of another rubble landfill at the Gravel Hill Road site. Prior to, or in conjunction with, this application, MRA was involved in discussions with the Harford County Department of Public Works and MDE concerning this proposed facility. The Department of Public Works is part of the Harford County government’s executive branch. MRA asked the Harford County Council (hereinafter the Council) to include MRA’s proposed landfill in Harford County’s Solid Waste Management Plan (hereinafter SWM Plan or Plan).

The Harford County Department of Public Works supported MRA’s application, and requested that the proposed landfill include a cell for asbestos interment because the County’s SWM Plan had no designated asbestos interment sites. MRA agreed to this request. At its November 7,1989 meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Gravel Hill Road site as a landfill. The Council heard comments from the project’s proponents and opponents, plus it received detailed technical information.

At its next session on November 14, 1989, the Council passed a motion that approved including the Gravel Hill Road project in the County’s SWM Plan. The Council’s attorney had advised the Council that it must act on the matter before November 17, or MDE would treat MRA’s request as having been approved. 1 Council members Fielder, Hooper, Hatem, and Hardwicke voted to include the site in the Plan. Council members Risacher and Parrott abstained, stating that they had inadequate information to make the decision, particularly with respect to the asbestos ¹²⁵ disposal. Council member Schafer abstained because his son, Richard Schafer, is MRA’s president.

The Council also mandated twenty seven conditions governing the landfill’s operation. MRA agreed to these conditions in discussions with the Executive Branch and with the Council. The Council transmitted to MDE its decision to include the site in the County’s SWM Plan. MDE gave initial approval to MRA’s project on November 20, 1989.

MRA then filed with MDE the extensive reports and drawings required to obtain the next level of MDE approvals. After the Council agreed to include the rubble landfill in the County’s SWM Plan, MRA’s attorney, William Hooper, asked the Council to clarify two of the aforementioned conditions. He discussed this with the Council’s president, John Hardwicke. Hardwicke apparently took the position that the language Hooper requested was in fact a clarification and not a substantive modification of the conditions previously approved.

On December 8, 1989, Hardwicke directed the Secretary of the Council to send to John Lawther, Chief of MDE’s Solid Wastes Division, a letter noting these clarifications. Hardwicke disclosed to the other Council members neither the clarifications nor the letter. When this later came to the Council’s attention, it passed a motion and sent MDE a letter indicating that the conditions as originally stated were what the Council intended and that, in the Council’s opinion, the letter of clarification was in fact a substantive modification of the conditions. The Council took this action on February 6, 1990.

It made no attempt to rescind its prior decision to include MRA’s property in the County’s SWM Plan. MRA proceeded with its purchase of the property. The deal closed on February 9, 1990, and MRA paid a $732,500 purchase price, financed by an $800,000 mortgage loan from the Bank of Maryland. On February 13, 1990, Council members Wilson and Parrott introduced Resolution 4-90.

The resolution follows: ¹²⁶ A RESOLUTION amending the Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan to delete the Gravel Hill Road Rubble Landfill. WHEREAS, On November 14, 1989, the County Council approved a request to add the proposed Gravel Hill Road Rubble Landfill to the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Ensuring an adequate and safe water supply for Harford County residents is an essential part of every land use issue decision; and WHEREAS, In order to make a responsible land use decision, the Council needed additional time to obtain the necessary scientific information on the landfill’s possible effect on the surrounding community’s water supply, but was required to act on the request by November 17, 1989 under Maryland Department of Environment regulations; and WHEREAS, A number of residents of the Gravel Hill Road area had problems with their existing water supply, and these problems may or may not have been caused by mining at the site of the proposed rubble landfill of Gravel Hill Road; and WHEREAS, Under the current proposal for the rubble landfill the residents of the Gravel Hill Road area have no guarantee that further excavation of the landfill site will not affect their water supply; and WHEREAS, The Harford County Water and Sewerage plan does not include the Gravel Hill Road area within the area scheduled to receive public water in the next 10 years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the County Council of Harford County, Maryland, that the Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan is hereby amended to delete the Gravel Hill Road Rubble Landfill from the Plan. Council membership had changed by this time.

Hardwicke had resigned to accept a position as the state’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, and the Council had appointed ¹²⁷ Jeffrey Wilson to fill that vacancy. Wilson and Council member Parrott introduced Resolution 4-90. The Council held four public hearings concerning Resolution 4-90’s adoption, during which it heard oral statements, and admitted letters and other exhibits. At the final vote on this resolution, which the Council passed on May 8, 1990, Schafer again abstained, Fielder abstained, and Hooper abstained on advice from the Ethics Board because he is a principal in Harford Sanitation, which is in the business of trash collection.

Council members Hatem, Risacher, Parrott, and Wilson voted to adopt the resolution. Neither Wilson, Risacher, nor Parrott participated in the November vote to amend the SWM Plan to include MRA’s proposed rubble fill site: Wilson was not then a Council member, and Risacher and Parrott had abstained. After the Council passed Resolution 4-90, MDE stopped processing MRA’s application for an expanded rubble fill permit before it completed its technical evaluation of MRA’s secondary phase applications. MRA filed suit in the Circuit Court for Harford County against the County Council of Harford County and Harford County, Maryland, seeking declaratory relief and alleging that the Council’s decision to delete its proposed landfill from the County’s SWM Plan was unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions, a breach of contract, ultra vires, and barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.

The Circuit Court entered a comprehensive, carefully prepared Memorandum Opinion with an Order granting MRA’s Motion for Summary Judgment and declaring the resolution void, based on its determination that the Council could not delete the proposed rubble landfill site from its SWM Plan because doing so exceeded its delegated authority, and because MRA had vested rights with which the Council could not interfere. Finally, the court found that in enacting Resolution 4-90, the Council failed to follow proper procedures. ¹²⁸ The Council now appeals the Circuit Court’s decision, raising the following issues: I. Was the trial court’s grant of MRA’s motion for judgment improper because the Council may lawfully enact legislation which deletes the proposed rubble fill site from the County’s SWM Plan?

II

Did the trial court act improperly in granting the motion for judgment because the Council acted in its legislative capacity, and not adjudicatively?

III

Did the trial court err in holding that the Council failed to follow proper procedures when it enacted Resolution 4-90? STATUTORY BACKGROUND The trial court outlined the statutory and regulatory provisions governing planning for and issuing permits to landfills. In determining whether the Council acted within the scope of its authority in that scheme, it was necessary for the court to determine whether there had been compliance with those provisions. The state delegates to local county governments the authority to plan facilities for solid waste disposal.

The Code of Maryland Regulations details the counties’ responsibilities. Each county must adopt and maintain a comprehensive SWM Plan encompassing a ten year period. Md. Regs.Code tit. 26, § 26.03.03.02(A) (1988). Another chapter details the regulations applicable to persons “engaged in the construction and operation of all solid waste acceptance facilities.” Id. § 26.04.07.01.

See generally id. ch. 07. The regulations also specify each chapter’s contents and their arrangement. See id. § 26.03.03.03. The Plan’s Introduction must certify that the Plan is consistent with state regulations, and that the county governing body has officially adopted it.

See id. § 26.03.03.03(A). Chapter One must contain a discussion of the county’s goals, and outline the county governmental structure relevant to the SWM Plan. It must also contain a discussion of pertinent laws ¹²⁹ and regulations. See id. § 26.03.03.03(B).

Chapter Two must contain present and anticipated population estimates, a map of municipalities and federal facilities, a discussion of existing relevant county zoning requirements, and the status of the county comprehensive land-use plan. See id. § 26.03.03.03(C). Chapter Three is to include a table showing the annual rate of garbage generation, and a description of the solid waste entering or leaving the county for disposal. The chapter also must include a description of the county’s waste collection systems, and information about each existing public or private waste acceptance facility.

See id. § 26.03.03.03(D). Chapter Four must contain the county’s assessment of the necessity to alter its existing systems in the next decade, considering constraints enumerated in this section. See id. § 26.03.03.03(E). Finally, Chapter Five is to include a county plan of action discussing the facilities to be in use during the planning period.

A person constructing, operating, altering, or extending a rubble landfill must first obtain a permit. Id. Md.Regs. Code tit. 26 § 26.04.07.04(A).

State law delegates to the Secretary of the Environment the authority to issue permits for refuse disposal systems. Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-204(d) (1987); see also Md.Regs.Code tit. 26, § 26.04.07.-02(B)(2) (1988) (defining “Approving Authority” as “the Secretary of the Environment or the Secretary’s designee”). Specific regulations govern rubble landfills, including their design and operational requirements. Id. § 26.04.-07.13 (1988).

Regulations .14-.17 detail MDE’s responsibility to protect health and safety with respect to issuing permits for sanitary landfills. The process of issuing permits has three phases, each described in detail. See id. §§ .14 (Phase I); .15 (Phase II); .16 (Phase III). The trial court noted that “[i]t appears that any broad grant of police power delegated to the County governing body by the State ... has been reclaimed by the State through these regulations, seemingly due to MDE’s greater wealth of expertise in the area.” ¹³⁰ The court concluded that state authority and county authority substantially overlap in regulating solid waste management.

With respect to the planning process, a county must review its SWM Plan at least once every two years, but MDE must approve any revisions the county makes. See Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-503 (1987) (requiring counties to review plans at two year intervals); Md.Regs. Code tit. 26, § 26.03.03.05E (1988) (MDE must act within 90 days); Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-507(a) (1987) (MDE has power to approve proposed Plan revisions). The permit issuing process evidences a similar overlap in responsibilities.

The state has most of the responsibility for issuing rubble landfill permits, but the County nevertheless has a limited role: within boundaries established by the state, the County specifies the types of waste that may be disposed of in a rubble landfill. See Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-210 (prerequisites for issuing permit). (a) In general. — The Secretary may not issue a permit to install, materially alter, or materially extend a refuse disposal system ... until the Department has a written statement from the applicant that the refuse disposal system conforms to the county solid waste management plan and meets all applicable zoning and land use requirements. (b) Rubble Landfills. — (1) The Secretary may not issue a permit for a rubble landfill ... unless the county in which the rubble landfill is located has specified the types of waste that may be disposed of in that rubble landfill in its county solid waste management plan under Subtitle 5 of this title.

(2) The types of waste that a county may allow to be disposed of in a rubble landfill under this section include: (i) Trees; (ii) Land clearing debris that is not a controlled hazardous substance ... (iii) Demolition debris that is not a controlled hazardous substance ... ¹³¹ (iv) Construction debris that is not a controlled hazardous substance ... (3) The following types of waste may be disposed of in a rubble landfill subject to the regulations adopted under this subtitle if the disposal of these wastes is expressly approved by the county in its county solid waste management plan: (i) Asbestos; (ii) White goods; and (iii) Used tires. Id.

The trial court concluded that this section does not “delegate any duty to the County, but merely reiterates the County’s authority in the planning stage to adopt and maintain the solid waste management plan and zoning/land use requirements.” 2 Finally, the Maryland Regulations specify that: A. ... [E]ach county plan shall be: (1) Revised if deemed necessary by the Department; (2) Reviewed in its entirety at the interval specified by Environment Article, Title 9, Subtitle 5, Annotated Code of Maryland [at least every two years]; and (3) Revised to include the installation or extension of either a solid waste acceptance facility, or solid waste disposal system, before the issuance of a permit by the Department ... Md.Regs.Code tit. 26, § 26.03.03.05(A) (1988) (emphasis added). The trial court concluded that regulation (A)(3), supra, could be interpreted in either of two ways. It could mean that a county possesses veto power over whether a ¹³² proposed facility actually is given a permit, exercised by the county’s decision whether to include the facility in its SWM Plan.

Or it could mean that a county must update its Plan — that the regulation is an obligation the state placed on the counties, and not a grant of power. The court found the latter interpretation more compelling, and so do we. If the regulation constituted what amounts to county veto power, this would conflict with the Environment Article’s section 9-210, supra. The court’s finding that the regulation merely compels a county to update its Plan is consistent with the present section 9-210.

It is a “final step in the permitting process, i.e. an assurance that all operating landfills are properly designated on the County’s SWM Plan.” The court also stated that: Specific sites are not, and need not, be identified in advance as a part of the plan process. The. Plan does, however, identify all existing sites. Once all reviews are complete and a site is ready for approval, it is therefore rational for the MDE to require through its regulations that the specific site be included on the SWM Plan.

This interpretation not only agrees with the amended § 9-210, but also fits logically into the entire statutory scheme of authority which has been previously described. HARFORD COUNTY’S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Harford County adopted its first SWM Plan in 1974 pursuant to state statutory requirements. 3 The Council has amended the plan from time to time, but the initial plan remains Harford County’s SWM Plan. The Plan contains nine sections. Section One introduces the Plan, Section Two ¹³³ summarizes it, and Section Three describes the “study area.” Section Four provides background for the planning area, and contains a map showing areas with hydrogeological limitations for selecting landfill sites.

See Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan, Table 4.9. Most of the County, including the proposed rubble fill site, falls within areas designated as having slight to moderate hydro-geological limitations. The map is a general one, however, and individual sites could be hydrogeologically acceptable even in the areas indicated as severely limited, and vice versa. Section Five concerns public information, and Section Six covers the SWM Plan’s present status.

The latter section estimates the relative composition of the county’s waste. 4 Section Seven describes existing conditions. Section Eight outlines the Plan’s objectives, and Section Nine describes future plans, including a table indicating that construction and demolition debris will be disposed of at “Selected sites,” instead of buried at the County’s landfills. See Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan, Tables 9-1, 9-2. A table in Section Nine designated three landfills for construction and demolition debris: these were the Scarboro, Tollgate, and Mullins landfills.

See Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan, Table 9-2. The Council updated the Plan in 1976, and it reflected the anticipation that in 1978-79 the County would undertake a study to locate new sites for rubble landfills. The 1978 Plan estimated that in 1990 the County would require 141 acre-feet 5 of demolition construction rubble landfill space, and noted that it would need new landfill sites. In 1980, the County updated the Plan and reduced the number of rubble landfill sites without providing replace ¹³⁴ ment facilities to accept demolition and construction debris.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Hygiene, Charles Buck, objected to this decision in a letter dated July 21, 1980. John Hardwicke was Council president then, and responded to Buck by letter indicating that the County landfills would accept construction and demolition debris unless and until the County decided that it required additional rubble landfill sites. Letter from John Hardwicke to Charles Buck (Aug. 27, 1980). Table 9-1 of the Plan’s 1980 version noted that County landfills “and/or Selected sites” would accept construction and demolition debris.

The 1983 update indicated that construction and demolition rubble would be disposed of at “Private approved rubble fills.” See Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan, 1983 Update, Table 1-1. In 1985, a private rubble landfill, Spencer’s Rubble Pill, was in operation and was expected to continue until 1992. See id., 1985 Update, Table 1-1. Table 1-2 continued to specify that rubble should be disposed in “Private approved rubble fills.” The 1985 update also stated that “Harford County has not accepted asbestos or asbestos related materials in the past in any of its landfills and will continue to maintain this position.” The Plan required contractors to haul all such materials elsewhere.

By 1988, the Scarboro landfill had expanded and was the County’s central landfill. Tollgate landfill closed in July, 1987, and the County’s Waste to Energy Plant, which would burn waste and provide steam for the United States Army, was being tested. The Scarboro landfill’s expansion and the implementation of the Waste to Energy Plant were the County’s long-term solution to the waste disposal problem that had plagued it for years. The 1988 Plan update reiterated the Council’s expectation that Spencer’s rubble landfill had a maximum life of five to six years.

The Plan also projected that private companies would develop rubble landfills, becoming operational in 1988 and 1989, with life expectancies of fifteen years per site. See id., 1988 Update, Ch. 4. The master plan identified no specific sites for ¹³⁵ rubble landfills. The Plan reiterated that asbestos would be shipped out of state, and that Harford County had no asbestos disposal facilities available.

The 1988 update contained an action plan calling for extending for thirty years the existing facilities’ lives. It also acknowledged that Spencer’s rubble landfill would close by 1993, but provided that rubble would continue to be disposed in “private approved rubble fills.” 6 See id., 1988 Update, Ch. 5. The Council also follows its own informal policies and procedures for including rubble landfills in the SWM Plan. For example, the Department of Public Works prepares and amends the Plan, then submits it to the Council for its approval.

The Council’s policy was to “recycle privately owned sand and gravel pits into rubble landfills” so that the County’s valuable landfill space was preserved for domestic waste. 7 The Council also avoided identifying landfill site locations in the Plan, considering proposed locations only when an application was pending before MDE. The Council allowed applicants who filed preliminary MDE permit applications to address the Council in public hearing so that the applicant could avoid unnecessary delay and expense. The Council also has authority to determine zoning criteria for landfill sites. See Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-210(a) (1987); Md.Regs.Code tit. 26, § 26.03.03.03(E)(4)f (1988).

The Council in 1957 passed a zoning ordinance stipulating that landfills were to be located only in the County’s agricultural district. In 1982, the Council adopted comprehensive rezoning, however, allowing landfills in every zoning ¹³⁶ district other than the Office/Research Industrial District. See Harford County, Md., Code vol. II, Zoning ch. 267; Table I: Principle Permitted Uses for Specific Zoning Districts — Transportation, Communication and Utilities (1990).

Because the County adopted less restrictive new zoning laws after the state implemented its own comprehensive regulatory scheme, the trial court concluded that apparently “the County has placed great reliance on MDE’s ability to determine the appropriateness of a particular landfill site.” 8 Significantly, the trial , court noted that: [t]he Council did not require landfills or disposal sites to receive a conditional use or special exception approval. Such treatment appears consistent with the idea that extensive and comprehensive review of each application is the duty of the Maryland Department of Environment. Since this process includes extensive scientific review and public hearing, there was no need to assert zoning control over landfill sites. THE TRIAL COURT’S CONCLUSIONS The trial court found that the Council’s November 14 conclusion was correct: the proposed Gravel Hill Road project is consistent with the County's SWM Plan and its subsequent amendments, and the Council could approve that facility subject to various express conditions.

The Plan called for private rubble landfill development in the County’s southeastern portion. The Council’s policy was to target sand and gravel pits as landfill sites because doing so would extend the Scarboro landfill’s useful life, and simultaneously reclaim the abandoned mine pits. The reverse was true with respect to the Council’s subsequent decision to rescind its November finding. The trial court opined that: ¹³⁷ [t]he action represented by Resolution 4-90 was not a finding that the site was inconsistent with the SWM Plan but was a finding that the use of the specific site would represent a threat to ground water resources in the area.

This was not a decision relating to interpretation of the Plan, but was rather a specific determination concerning the hydrogeological conditions of the site and area. The trial court’s conclusion on this matter stems from varied evidence, including several council members’ depositions indicating their belief that the project was contrary to public interest, and videotapes of the public hearings that ensued after the Council revived the issue. The trial court reviewed portions of the videotapes and described their import: The focus of the evidence submitted and the statements heard during these public hearings was upon the impact of the rubble landfill at the Gravel Hill site on the neighboring properties____ These subsequent proceedings purported to find that it was not in the best interests of the community, or the County, to have the rubble landfill site located at Gravel Hill. This focus was on the nature of land use type issues and did not address the question of whether the proposed site was consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan, as required by statute.

The trial court concluded that however legitimate these concerns, they are not an appropriate basis for the Council’s action to rescind its November decision. In the judge’s words: [t]he approval of a rubble landfill site is within the province of the Secretary of the MDE. The regulations ... have been adopted to deal with this process. The statutes do not delegate to the Council the responsibility of determining whether a particular site will adversely affect the water supply of neighboring properties.

The Secretary of the MDE has the specific responsibility of conducting public hearings and elaborate investigations to determine the impact of the rubble landfill on ground ¹³⁸ water supply. Neither the Legislature nor the Secretary have delegated that responsibility to the Harford County Council. 9 ♦ * $ * * * [T]he Council’s responsibility was limited to that which was delegated to it in the regulations — to determine whether the site was consistent with the master SWM plan. I. STATE’S LEGISLATIVE PREEMPTION A. The Home Rule Provisions The Council argues on appeal that the Maryland Constitution’s home rule provisions control this case. See Md. Const, art.

XI-A (means by which counties establish home rule status). The state constitution requires home rule counties to create legislative bodies vested with the power to create law. After the adoption of a charter, the County Council of said County, subject to the Constitution and Public General Laws of this State, shall have full power to enact local laws of said ... County including the power to repeal or amend local laws of said ...

County enacted by the General Assembly, upon all matters covered by the express powers granted as above provided ... ¹³⁹ Id. § 3. The Harford County Council is the county government’s legislative branch, as the constitution requires. See Harford County, Md. Charter, art. II § 202.

The state’s General Assembly grants express powers to counties that adopt a charter form of government, and the General Assembly may not enact local laws on these subjects. Md. Const, art. XI-A, § 2 (requiring legislature to grant express powers); id. § 4 (prohibiting state legislature from preempting counties). Harford County is a charter home rule county.

TheJVIaryland Code contains the “Express Powers Act,” which defines the charter counties’ lióme rule powers by enumerating the proper subjects for local legislation. See Md.Code Ann. art. 25A, § 5 (1987). Article 25A, section 5(T), inter alia, authorizes a county council to enact ordinances and amendments relating to waste disposal to protect and promote public safety, health, morals, comfort^ and welfare. The article also contains a broad grant of legislative power: The foregoing or other enumeration of powers in this article shall not be held to limit the power of the county council, in addition thereto, to pass all ordinances, resolutions or bylaws, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article or the laws of the State, as may be proper in executing and enforcing any of the powers enumerated in this section or elsewhere in this article, as well as such ordinances as may be deemed expedient in maintaining the peace, good government, health and welfare of the county. 10 Md.Code Ann. art. 25A, § 5(S) (1987) (emphasis added).

See Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151, 161 , 252 A.2d 242 (1969) (section 5(S) is a general welfare clause giving a municipality broad discretion in exercising the police power); 71 Op. Att’y Gen. 197, 199 (1986); see ¹⁴⁰ also Md.Code Ann. art. 25A, § 5(X) (local governments may enact local zoning and planning laws to protect public health and safety). Each county must have a SWM Plan, and its contents are to include: (1) [provision] for the orderly expansion and extension of ... systems in a manner consistent with all county and local comprehensive plans prepared under [inter alia Article 25A § 5(X) ] of the Code ... Md.Envir.Code Ann. § 9-505(a)(l) (1988).

The Council argues that its authority to enact legislation deleting a proposed rubble fill site from the County’s SWM Plan is independent of any authority granted to the Council by the legislature pursuant to the Maryland Environmental Article. Citing the state constitution’s home rule provisions, the Council argues that municipalities are empowered to govern themselves in local matters without state interference, and that this includes regulating solid, waste management, engaging in planning and zoning for the public welfare, and the county’s police power. Whereas the county possesses a large measure of power through the state constitution’s home rule provisions, its power is limited in those areas preempted either by the constitution, or by conflicting provisions of state law. Md. Code Ann. art. 25A, § 5(S); see also 71 Op.

Att’y Gen. 197, 200 (1986) ("authority flowing from the Express Powers Act is not unlimited”). We turn, then to consider whether the County’s actions were preempted. B. State Preemption 1. Landfill Site Approval The Council initially concluded that MRA’s proposal was consistent with Harford County’s SWM Plan.

The trial court found this permissible, and we agree: the SWM Plan called for privately developed rubble landfills to be located in the county’s southeastern portion and to utilize abandoned sand and gravel pits, if possible. ¹⁴¹ The lower court also found that Resolution 4-90 was not a Council decision as to the proposed site’s inconsistency with the Plan. Rather, the Council decided that the site’s hydrogeological conditions make it unsuitable for use as a rubble landfill, because it might threaten the area’s ground water. The Council also deliberated upon the incompatibility of the rubble fill with surrounding land uses, a classical exercise usually undertaken in zoning matters. The trial court concluded that the Council’s action in passing Resolution 4-90, however well motivated, exceeded its authority, and we concur.

The trial court found that MDE, and not the County, is responsible for approving landfill sites via the permit process. The regulations require MDE to conduct public hearings and undertake elaborate investigations to determine how a landfill will affect the area’s ground water, and neither the state legislature nor MDE have delegated that responsibility to the Harford County Council. As the trial court put it, “the Council’s responsibility was limited to that which was delegated to it in the regulations — to determine whether the site was consistent with the master SWM plan. The Council also has the responsibility to make determinations as to what types of material can be located in the rubble landfill____” Thus, the trial court found that because the Council enacted Resolution 4-90, which eliminated the site from the County’s SWM Plan out of its concern for the site’s effect on local ground water and/or its compatibility with surrounding land use, and not on the basis of its consistency with the Plan, it impermissibly exceeded its authority. 11 The trial court’s finding raises issues concerning whether state law, which oversees solid waste management planning and permitting processes, preempts local law.

Although a ¹⁴² charter county’s laws ordinarily would prevail over state law in subjects that are local in nature, the state’s legislation may preempt a field of regulation in certain areas. See O. Reynolds, Local Government Law § 43 (1982) (“state may by legislation have pre-empted (or “occupied”) a particular field of activity or regulation.”). The Court of Appeals stated the doctrine as follows: [P]re-emption is grounded upon the authority of the General Assembly to reserve for itself exclusive dominion over an entire field of legislative concern. When properly invoked, the doctrine precludes local legislative bodies from enacting any legislation whatsoever in the preempted field.

Pre-emption may be accomplished either expressly by statutory language prohibiting local legislation, .... or impliedly, by other unequivocal conduct of the General Assembly____ In either case, the focus of the inquiry must be on whether the General Assembly has manifested a purpose to occupy exclusively a particular field. Ad + Soil, Inc. v. County Comm’rs, 307 Md. 307, 324 , 513 A.2d 893 (1986) (appellate court upheld zoning board denial of conditional use permit to sewage sludge storage and distribution facility). A county has only such powers as the state expressly grants, as well as those that are fairly implied from those expressly granted. By virtue of the Express Powers Act, counties have full power to enact local