Hinds County v. Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality
2011 Miss. LEXIS 203
| Miss. | 2011Background
- In 2003 Madison County amended its waste-management plan to include a third municipal solid waste landfill and submitted it to the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) for review and approval.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the Commission approved the amended plan, and Hinds County appealed to the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.
- The court appointed Senior Status Judge William J. Lutz as a special judge to preside; Judge Lutz affirmed the Commission’s approval, and Hinds County appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- Bilberry Family Limited Partnership owns a 169-acre parcel in Madison County adjacent to an existing landfill and seeks to develop 100 acres as a landfill, requiring a permit from the MDEQ.
- The approval process involves zoning to industrial, amendment of the county plan with public notice, and finally a demonstration of need to the Permit Board, with multiple public hearings from 1998–2004 and a host-fee agreement in January 2003.
- After new Madison County Board members were elected in 2004, the Board voted 3–2 to amend the plan; the Commission held a hearing in 2004–2005 and approved the amendment in August 2005.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commission have a statutory duty to determine Madison County’s need for another landfill, and was this duty improperly delegated? | Hinds County asserts Commission duty to determine need and improper delegation to Madison County. | Commission interprets statutes as evaluating adequacy of need demonstrated by the county, not independently determining need. | Commission not required to determine need; issue without merit. |
| Did the Commission properly consider the hardship Bilberry landfill would cause Hinds County? | Hardship to North County Line Road, county plan conflicts, and health impacts should be considered by the Commission. | Hardship factors are within Permit Board review, not Commission duty; Commission considered some concerns but not all. | Issue not meritorious; hardship to be evaluated at Permit Board stage. |
| Did Madison County violate statutory public-comment requirements by amending the plan after a host-fee agreement with Bilberry? | Host-fee agreement bound the Board to amend before end of public-comment phase. | Affidavits show the Board was not bound to amend due to the host-fee agreement; public comment occurred. | Commission findings supported by substantial evidence; issue without merit. |
| Does the Bilberry landfill violate environmental justice? | Nearby African-American families would bear disproportionate burden; site would become Mississippi’s 'landfill capital'. | Environmental justice review is more properly handled by the Permit Board; preliminary review showed minor impact and active public involvement. | Issue premature; environmental justice to be examined by Permit Board; no merit at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Titan Tire of Natchez, Inc. v. Miss. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 891 So.2d 195 (Miss. 2004) (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations)
- Weems v. Miss. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 653 So.2d 266 (Miss. 1995) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
- P.E.R.S. v. Dishmon, 17 So.3d 87 (Miss. 2009) (standards for overturning agency order (substantial evidence, arbitrary, etc.))
- P.E.R.S. v. Marquez, 774 So.2d 421 (Miss. 2000) (administrative-review standard; deference to agency)
- Golden Triangle Reg’l Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. v. Concerned Citizens Against the Location of the Landfill, 722 So.2d 648 (Miss. 1998) (public-comment and environmental-review considerations)
- Mississippi Com’n on Envtl. Quality v. Chickasaw County, 621 So.2d 1211 (Miss. 1993) (prejudice and substantial-evidence review in administrative decisions)