Voigt v. North Dakota Public Service Commission
2017 ND 76
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Casey Voigt owns land adjacent to Coyote Creek in Mercer County and entered a surface/coal lease; Coyote Creek lies within the area covered by Coyote Creek Mine Permit NACC-1302.
- Coyote Creek Mining Co. applied for and the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) conditionally approved the permit, finding no “alluvial valley floors” (AVFs) within or adjacent to the permit area.
- Voigt requested a formal hearing, arguing the Commission and Company failed to identify/protect AVFs on his lowland alfalfa fields (claiming subirrigation and/or flood‑irrigation capability), and presented expert testimony and evidence at hearings.
- The Company submitted AVF evaluation reports (2013 report incorporating a 2009 study) and the PSC’s Reclamation Division conducted field reviews; these concluded no AVFs or significant subirrigation/flood‑irrigation potential along Coyote Creek.
- The PSC issued a final order affirming the permit (with reclamation-related relief) and concluded the Coyote Creek alluvium is not an AVF; Voigt appealed to district court, which affirmed; Voigt appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Voigt) | Defendant's Argument (PSC/Company) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSC complied with AVF statutory/regulatory process before approving the permit | Company failed to "affirmatively demonstrate" that lands adjacent to Coyote Creek are not AVFs (insufficient data, especially on subirrigation and flood‑irrigation capability) | Company and PSC had adequate, site‑specific studies and field reviews; PSC has discretion to determine appropriate combination of data | Affirmed — PSC complied with law and had adequate evidence; agency discretion on data mix was reasonable |
| Whether Voigt’s lowland alfalfa fields are subirrigated (supporting AVF designation) | Fields show subirrigation that enhances production; expert Norris said more monitoring wells and data were needed | Experts (Dr. Bickel, PSC staff) found no evidence of significant subirrigation; higher yields explained by soil type, not subirrigation | Affirmed — record allows reasonable conclusion fields are not subirrigated as defined by regulation |
| Whether lands adjacent to Coyote Creek are capable of flood irrigation | Flood‑irrigation capability exists or is reasonably possible, supporting AVF status | Studies and local NRCS info show no historical flood irrigation and limited surface flow/water quality; flood irrigation potential is very low | Affirmed — PSC reasonably found lands lack capability for flood irrigation |
| Whether PSC’s findings sufficiently addressed Voigt’s evidence and legal standard (e.g., "enhanced" vs "significantly enhanced") | PSC applied an incorrect/higher standard by requiring "significant" enhancement and failed to address appellant evidence | PSC reasonably interpreted technical regulations; OSM guidance supports focusing on meaningful enhancement; findings addressed conflicting testimony | Affirmed — PSC’s interpretation and findings were reasonable and supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Capital Elec. Coop., Inc. v. N.D. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 877 N.W.2d 304 (N.D. 2016) (standard of review for agency factual findings and deference to expertise)
- Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (weight‑of‑evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Cass Cty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. N. States Power Co., 518 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1994) (agency expertise entitled to deference in technical matters)
- N.D. Sec. Comm’r v. Juran & Moody, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 503 (N.D. 2000) (deference to agency interpretation when language is technical or ambiguous)
- St. Benedict’s Health Ctr. v. N.D. Dep’t of Human Servs., 677 N.W.2d 202 (N.D. 2004) (agency discretion in interpreting and applying its own regulations)