Haas Trucking, Inc. v. Hancock Solid Waste Auth.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00373-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Solid waste plan - Improper procedures - Section 17-17-227(6) - Arbitrary and capricious decision Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, and Carlton, J.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2009 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Lawrence P. Bourgeois, Jr. Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HANCOCK COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Case Number: 2007-357 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HAAS TRUCKING, INC. |
R. HAYES JOHNSON JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | HANCOCK COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY AND HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS | RONALD J. ARTIGUES JR., PATRICK W. KIRBY | ||
| Amicus #1: |
|
|||
| Amicus #2: | ||||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Solid waste plan - Improper procedures - Section 17-17-227(6) - Arbitrary and capricious decision |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Hancock County Solid Waste Authority put out a public notice, seeking applications “from developers and operators for Class I rubbish sites in Hancock County, Mississippi.” The notice stated that the Authority would “review all requests and make a determination of need as to whether additional sites are needed and/or will be included in the application process for a plan amendment.” Haas Trucking submitted a request seeking inclusion of their site in the amendment. Haas Trucking was included as a Class I rubbish site in the proposed plan amendment; an engineering firm that helped the Authority select the sites stated that the Haas Trucking site would “provide the citizens of Hancock County a conveniently located landfill that will reduce transportation cost[s].” Boudin Environmental also requested, and was granted, inclusion as a site in the proposed amendment. After the Authority ratified its proposed amendment in 2006, the Authority submitted the ratified proposal to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. As submitted, the proposed amendment suggested the establishment of eight additional waste-disposal sites, including the sites owned by Haas Trucking and Boudin Environmental. At the time of the proposal, one Class I rubbish site was already in operation in Hancock County. Instead of issuing an order accepting or rejecting the proposal, the MDEQ sent a letter, dated February 26, 2007, to the Authority expressing concerns over the number of sites included in the proposal. The MDEQ further offered the support and aid of an engineering firm, Neel-Schaffer Engineers. The record indicates that the Authority chose to accept the aid of Neel-Schaffer. Neel-Schaffer presented the Authority with a recommendation of three sites that the firm believed would meet Hancock County’s waste-management needs. After reviewing Neel-Schaffer’s recommendations, the Authority ratified a revised plan amendment to propose to the MDEQ. Instead of the eight sites that were originally proposed, the revised proposal contained only one additional Class I rubbish site, the “King site.” None of the three sites recommended by Neel-Schaffer were owned by Haas Trucking or Boudin Environmental. Haas Trucking appealed to circuit court which affirmed the decision of the Authority. Haas Trucking appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hass Trucking argues that the existence of the Authority’s 2006 proposed amendment, which was never officially rejected by the MDEQ, somehow necessitates a finding that the 2007 proposal is invalid. Specifically, Haas Trucking argues that the proper procedures were not followed in regard to the 2006 proposal, that the letter sent from the MDEQ finding fault with the 2006 proposal was an unauthorized exercise of administrative decision-making authority, and that the doctrine of res judicata bars the 2007 proposal. Pursuant to section 17-17-227(6), after the Authority submitted its proposed amendment in 2006, the MDEQ had one hundred and eighty days in which to respond to the proposal with an order either rejecting or accepting the proposal. However, no such order was ever issued by the MDEQ. While the MDEQ should have issued an order denying or approving the 2006 proposal, the failure to do so does not mean that the MDEQ implicitly accepted the 2006 proposal. No statute states that a failure of the MDEQ to respond in accordance with the statutory guidelines constitutes an acceptance of a submitted proposal. In the absence of an order accepting the 2006 proposal, it remained merely a proposal, subject to revision or alteration by the Authority, taking into account any discussion or guidelines offered by the MDEQ. Haas Trucking and Boudin Environmental also argue that the Authority’s decision not to include them in the 2007 proposed amendment was arbitrary and capricious. Even the 2006 engineering report, however, found that the King site would provide far better long-term capacity than either the Haas Trucking site or the Boudin Environmental site. It is clear that the Authority considered several sources of information; furthermore, it is logical that an agency such as the Authority will rely on the expertise of engineering firms in making such decisions when confronted with a problem beyond the Authority’s scope of expertise. Thus, the Authority’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
