Hinds County v. Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-00486-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-14-2011 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Waste management plan - Statutory duty - Section 17-17-225 - Section 17-17-229 - Hardship - Public comments - Section 17-17-227(5)(a) - Environmental justice Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William Joseph Lutz Disposition: After hearing oral arguments by counsel for the parties, Judge Lutz entered an order affirming the Commission's approval of the amended waste-management plan. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Hinds County |
BARRY H. POWELL, BOBBY OWENS, RAJITA IYER MOSS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, Madison County and Bilberry Family Limited Partnership and Madison County Board of Supervisors | ROY FURRH, AUBREY BRYAN SMITH, III, ERIC T. HAMER, FRED L. BANKS, JR., LUTHER T. MUNFORD | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
| Appellee #3: | ||||
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: | Waste management plan - Statutory duty - Section 17-17-225 - Section 17-17-229 - Hardship - Public comments - Section 17-17-227(5)(a) - Environmental justice |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2003, the Madison County Board of Supervisors amended Madison County’s waste-management plan to add a third municipal solid waste landfill to the county’s plan. The plan was then submitted to the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and, after an evidentiary hearing, was approved. Hinds County appealed the Commission’s approval to the chancery court. The special chancellor entered an order affirming the Commission’s approval of the amended plan. Hinds County appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statutory duty Section 17-17-225 lists criteria that the Commission must consider when evaluating a waste-management plan. One of these criteria is the adequacy of plans and implementation schedules for providing needed nonhazardous solid waste management capacity for the twenty-year period. Hinds County argues that, under section 17-17-225(d), the Commission has a statutory duty to determine whether Madison County needed another landfill and that it improperly delegated its duty to Madison County. Hinds County also argues that evidence in the record demonstrates that Madison County does not need an additional landfill, including the facts that Madison County already has two existing landfills and that Madison County’s finding of need was erroneously based on the conclusion that it needed competition among the landfills. Under the statutes governing the waste-management plan amendment process at the time that the Commission approved Madison County’s plan, Madison County and the Permit Board are to make determinations of need, not the Commission. Section 17-17-225 does not require an independent finding of need by the Commission, but rather requires the Commission to determine whether the proposed plan adequately meets the needs demonstrated by the county. Under section 17-17-229(1), Madison County is required to demonstrate need for the proposed landfill to the MDEQ Permit Board. This step in the approval process has not happened in today’s case because Hinds County appealed the Commission’s approval of Madison County’s amended waste-management plan, which is one step prior to the application to the Permit Board. Based on the language of sections 17-17-225 and 17-17-229 and the MDEQ’s criteria, the Commission’s interpretation was reasonable. Moreover, at the hearing before the Commission, Madison County provided ample evidence demonstrating its need for an additional landfill. Because the Commission does not have a duty to determine need, it cannot improperly delegate the duty. Issue 2: Hardship Hinds County argues that the Commission failed to consider the hardship that the proposed landfill will cause Hinds County. To support this contention, Hinds County argues that the landfill will increase maintenance costs for North County Line Road; that the landfill conflicts with Hinds County’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for residential development in the area; and that the landfill will cause danger and hardship to the health and well-being of Hinds County residents living near the site. Section 17-17-229 lists criteria that must be considered by the Permit Board when determining the location and permitting of a landfill. These criteria encompass Hinds County’s hardship concerns. Because Madison County’s amended waste-management plan has not yet reached the Permit Board phase, many of these factors have not been considered in-depth. Although the Commission did consider some of Hinds County’s concerns, the Commission is not required by statute to consider these factors. In fact, the Commission suggested to the Permit Board that Bilberry be required to clean litter off the adjacent road and that the landfill be set back from the road, evidencing that the Commission did consider possible hardship to Hinds County. Thus, as the Commission found, Hinds County’s hardship concerns are better suited for review before the Permit Board. Issue 3: Public comments Section 17-17-227(5)(a) requires the Board of Supervisors of a county seeking to amend its waste-management plan to provide public notice and at least one public hearing concerning the plan. The Commission considered the issue of whether the amendment process was prejudiced by the host-fee agreement and found that “Madison County’s review of the proposed amendment was consistent with state law and regulations of this Commission.” The Commission noted that Madison County had received public comment in November 1998, February 1999, March 1999, October 2002, and November 2003. Madison County had entered into the host-fee agreement in January 2003. The Commission also considered Supervisor Johnson’s testimony that he did not feel obligated to approve the plan in light of the host-fee agreement. The Commission was presented with conflicting evidence regarding the host-fee agreement and found that the agreement did not prejudice the Board’s vote. Considering the Board members’ testimony, the dissenting votes in the final vote by the Board, and the public hearings held before the host-fee agreement, the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. Issue 4: Environmental justice Hinds County argues that the Bilberry landfill will violate environmental justice because there are eight African-American families living near the landfill and the landfill’s adjacent location to an existing landfill will cause the area to become the “landfill capital of Mississippi.” The opportunity for meaningful public involvement is the most important consideration in an environmental justice review, and the public had multiple opportunities for input in today’s case. In addition to holding multiple public hearings, Madison County also hired an environmental firm to conduct an environmental justice review of the propose landfill. The firm considered the demographics of the area as part of its evaluation. The Commission properly considered the issue of environmental justice and correctly concluded that this issue will also be considered by a more in-depth review of the Permit Board. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
