No. 23-0282
Supreme Court of Texas
Argued October 1, 2024
JUSTICE DEVINE
Argued October 1, 2024
JUSTICE DEVINE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. (SOS) challenges a final order of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) granting the City of Dripping Springs a permit to discharge treated wastewater into Onion Creek. Although myriad concerns have either been resolved or abandoned, the parties remain at odds over the proper construction and application of TCEQ‘s “antidegradation” rules and implementation procedures.1 The central conflict concerns TCEQ‘s practice of assessing “degradation” of water quality by evaluating impacts on the water body as a whole rather than affording decisive weight to numeric changes in individual water-quality parameters.
By TCEQ rule, “degradation” means “a lowering of water quality by more than a de minimis extent.”2 When deciding whether a proposed discharge will result in degradation, TCEQ consults multiple water-quality parameters to determine whether the discharge will cause an overall “lowering of water quality.” Under this approach, numeric changes to one or more parameters may or may not equate to degradation. SOS reads the antidegradation rules as commanding a strict “parameter-by-parameter”
The court of appeals upheld the permit‘s issuance,3 and we affirm its judgment. TCEQ‘s practice of assessing a water body‘s overall quality conforms to the regulatory requirements as they are written. We are also unpersuaded by SOS‘s additional argument that TCEQ‘s final order is invalid for failure to include a “statement of the underlying facts” supporting TCEQ‘s ultimate fact findings.4
I.
A. The Disputed Discharge Permit
The City of Dripping Springs is rapidly outgrowing its current land-application wastewater permit, under which it may use treated water only to irrigate designated irrigation fields. To accommodate an expanding populace and plan for future needs, the City filed an application with TCEQ in 2015 for a permit to discharge up to 995,000 gallons per day of treated wastewater into two nearby waterways.5 Initial discharges would be made into Walnut Springs and then travel approximately .43 miles to Onion Creek. This appeal focuses only on Onion Creek.
TCEQ rules prescribe antidegradation standards for permitted discharges into three tiers of waterways.6 The following two are relevant to high-quality waterbodies like Onion Creek:
Tier 1. “Existing uses and water quality sufficient to protect those existing uses must be maintained. . . .”
Tier 2. “[1] No activities subject to regulatory action that would cause degradation of waters that exceed fishable/swimmable quality are allowed [2] unless it can be shown to [TCEQ‘s] satisfaction that the lowering of water quality is necessary for important economic or social development. [3] Degradation is defined as a lowering of water quality by more than a de minimis extent, but not to the extent that an existing use is impaired. Water quality sufficient to protect existing uses must be maintained. [4] Fishable/swimmable waters are defined as waters that have quality sufficient to support propagation of indigenous fish, shellfish, terrestrial life, and recreation in and on the water.”7
Under these standards, TCEQ may issue a waterway discharge permit to the City only if it has determined that the permitted activities would neither (1) disturb
For classified segments like Onion Creek, general numeric criteria are superseded by site-specific criteria.12 For example, the general DO criteria for water with high aquatic life can range from a mean of 4.0 to 5.5 mg/L,13 but the site-specific criterion for Onion Creek is a mean of 5.0 mg/L.14 Modeling the City submitted in support of its permit application showed that the proposed discharge would likely cause DO to drop from levels exceeding 6.44 mg/L at critical temperature to at or just below 5.0 mg/L at the discharge point, while rising to baseline levels almost immediately thereafter. The City believed this to be sufficient to meet Onion Creek‘s site-specific DO criterion.15
When TCEQ‘s Executive Director (ED) determined that the permit application was “administratively complete,” the City provided public notice of its intent to obtain a permit.16 TCEQ then commenced a “technical
The ED issued a preliminary decision granting the application,18 along with a draft permit incorporating the recommended adjustments, which the ED determined to be sufficient to protect existing uses and prevent degradation of water quality. The draft permit also required the City to disinfect the wastewater through a dechlorination process before discharging it. The City accepted these permit constraints and revised its application accordingly.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the draft permit and the City‘s revised application.19 The EPA also consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) based on the presence of the Barton Creek Salamander in the watershed.20 In December 2016, the EPA issued interim objections requesting more information about “whether the state‘s analysis complied with TCEQ‘s antidegradation policy and implementation procedures for Tier 2 review.” In January 2017, the EPA forwarded several additional questions following consultation with USFWS. After receiving a satisfactory response and supporting documentation from the ED, the EPA withdrew its objections in June 2017.21 Referencing the “considerably more stringent” effluent limits developed during TCEQ‘s technical review—including “very low” TP and TN limits—the EPA determined that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 antidegradation standards were satisfied. Referencing TCEQ‘s DO modeling, the EPA definitively stated that any changes to the receiving water body would be “de minimis (i.e., less than noticeable),” “no significant degradation of water quality
While the draft permit was under federal review, the City published a second notice about the ED‘s preliminary decision, which was set for a public meeting.22 During the public-comment period, the ED received comments from 1,087 people related to the draft permit and provided 160 written responses.23 In answer to several comments, the ED outlined the antidegradation review TCEQ undertook and explained why, in the ED‘s opinion, the draft permit met the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. After making additional changes to the draft permit in response to public comments, the ED approved the City‘s application in November 2017.
B. Contested-Case and Judicial-Review Proceedings
Scores of protestants, including SOS, requested a contested-case hearing to challenge the ED‘s preliminary decision and draft permit.24 TCEQ granted the request, referred the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), and identified twelve issues for adjudication.25 Two settlement agreements resolved the dispute as to all protestants except SOS. The settlement agreements extracted significant concessions from the City, some of which were then incorporated into the draft permit and others of which are enforceable through penalty provisions in the settlement agreements. Among them, the
Once the settlement agreements were finalized and the draft permit revised accordingly, the administrative hearing commenced with SOS as the sole protestant.27 When TCEQ‘s administrative record was admitted into evidence, a rebuttable “presumption” arose that the draft permit (1) “meets all state and federal legal and technical requirements” and (2) will “protect human health and safety, the environment and physical property.”28 SOS attempted to rebut the presumption as to some but not all of the referred issues, and the ED and the City offered additional evidence, as they were entitled to do.29 Because most of the adjudicated issues are not before this Court, we confine our discussion to the more relevant aspects of the underlying proceedings.
As to Tier 1, SOS argued that increased nutrient loading (TP and TN) from the permitted discharge would increase algal growth and cause a drop in DO levels that would negatively impact Onion Creek‘s existing and endangered aquatic species. SOS also cited one of the City‘s modeling results as demonstrating that the permit would disturb existing uses based on a projected dip in DO to 4.87 mg/L.30 As to Tier 2, SOS urged that (1) expected changes in TP, TN, and DO levels are much more than de minimis and (2) a reduction in DO exceeding 10% constitutes degradation per se.
After considering documentary evidence, deposition testimony, and three days of live testimony from the parties’ expert witnesses, the administrative law judge (ALJ)
Germane here, the ALJ addressed and rejected SOS‘s “parameter-by-parameter” antidegradation approach as a misreading of TCEQ‘s antidegradation rules. The ALJ observed that the critical inquiry is whether there is a “lowering of water quality by more than a de minimis amount,” not whether there has been a mere increase or decrease in TP, TN, and DO.32 While increases in nutrients can “be the primary factor in lowering of water quality,” “a mere increase, standing alone without additional evidence of its specific impact, does not equate to a lowering of water quality.” In the same vein, although SOS considered the change in DO levels significant, SOS failed to show the change “correlate[d] to a lowering of water quality by more than a de minimis amount.” On the contrary, the evidence supported the conclusion that the nutrient and “DO levels in the draft permit are protective of aquatic life, and any changes have not been demonstrated to constitute a lowering of water quality in a significant way, which is the focus of a Tier 2 antidegradation review.”33
After making minor changes to the ALJ‘s recommended findings and conclusions,34 TCEQ issued its final administrative order granting the City‘s permit application. The final order included 142 findings of fact and 22 conclusions of law and expressly adopted the ED‘s written responses to the public comments.35
SOS sought judicial review of TCEQ‘s final order,36 and the City intervened. In the judicial-review proceeding, the lower courts came to different conclusions about
In a split decision, the court of appeals reversed and upheld the permit.38 The majority held that, “under the statutes and rules ... as they are written,” substantial evidence supported TCEQ‘s determination that the discharge permit would neither lower Onion Creek‘s water quality nor impact its existing uses.39 Like the ALJ, the majority dismissed SOS‘s parameter-by-parameter construction of the antidegradation policy, observing that both “the existing [Texas Surface Water Quality Standards] and the EPA-approved [implementation procedures] provide that an antidegradation review be conducted in a narrative or qualitative manner, considering several factors in determining the effect a proposed discharge will have on the receiving waters.”40 Accordingly, SOS could not “establish as a matter of law that a permit violates the antidegradation rules, whether under the Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards, simply by pointing to evidence that a proposed discharge would lead to numeric increases in the TP and TN levels in the receiving water.”41 For similar reasons, the majority dismissed SOS‘s argument that TCEQ was required, but failed, to afford conclusive weight to anticipated changes in Onion Creek‘s DO level.42
In opining that the permit failed under both tiers, the dissent employed a parameter-based analysis focusing only on evidence of nutrient increases that the ALJ had discounted.43 As the majority correctly observed, regardless of the proper antidegradation methodology, the applicable standard of review precludes treating such evidence as undisputed or binding on the reviewing court.44
The parties’ debate about TCEQ‘s Tier 2 methodology is the principal issue before us. Because SOS loses on that issue, we further address—and similarly reject—SOS‘s alternative argument that the final order is fatally defective under section 2001.141 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) based on TCEQ‘s failure to detail certain “underlying facts” SOS contends are required to support the final order‘s ultimate findings of fact.45
A. Standard of Review
Under the APA, a court reviewing an agency‘s decision in a contested case “may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed to agency discretion.”46 But a reviewing court must “reverse or remand” when “substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions” are, among other things, (1) erroneous as a matter of law; (2) “not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole“; or (3) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.47 Each of the statutory grounds for reversal, including substantial-evidence review, is a question of law subject to de novo review.48
“Substantial evidence” is “a limited standard of review that gives significant deference to the agency in its field of expertise” and is, “[a]t its core. . a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.”49 The issue is “not whether the agency‘s decision was correct, but only whether the record demonstrates some reasonable basis for the agency‘s action.”50 To prevent courts from “usurping the agency‘s adjudicative authority,”51 an agency‘s findings, inferences, conclusions, and decisions are presumed to be sufficient unless the protestant proves otherwise.52
Arbitrariness is a distinct ground for reversal.53 An agency acts arbitrarily or abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a mandatory factor, considers an irrelevant factor, considers appropriate factors but reaches a completely unreasonable result, or fails to follow its own regulations.54 As SOS frames the issues, TCEQ‘s decision to grant the City‘s permit application is arbitrary and erroneous as a matter of law because TCEQ applied the wrong standard and substantial evidence does not support TCEQ‘s decision under the correct standard.
SOS‘s secondary issue involves a dispute about the necessity of a “statement of the underlying facts” in the final agency order. This too presents a question of law resolved by statutory construction principles.58 Our duty in all such matters is to adhere to the promulgated language “without adding to it or subtracting from it.”59
B. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Antidegradation Review
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 antidegradation standards differ but materially overlap. Both expressly require maintenance of existing uses and water quality sufficient to protect those uses.60 Subject to an exception not at issue here,61 Tier 2 additionally prohibits any discharge activities that would cause “degradation” of waters that are cleaner than necessary “to support propagation of indigenous fish, shellfish, terrestrial life, and recreation in and on the water.”62 “Degradation” is defined as “a lowering of water quality by more than a de minimis extent, but not to the extent that an existing use is impaired.”63 A discharge that would impair existing uses flunks both standards. A discharge that lowers “water quality” more than nominally flunks Tier 2 even if existing uses are not disturbed.64
discharge‘s predicted impact on a single water-quality parameter: dissolved oxygen.65
SOS contends, first, that the draft permit does not satisfy Tier 1 as a matter of law, and therefore also fails Tier 2 as a matter of law, because one of the City‘s two DO models estimated that DO could drop below Onion Creek‘s site-specific 5.0 mg/L criterion to 4.87 mg/L. However, other modeling, including TCEQ‘s own modeling, projected that a minimum of 5.0 mg/L would be maintained under the worst-case scenario. Under the applicable standard of review, TCEQ was not required to accept the lowest of the City‘s results over its own modeling yields. On top of that, all the DO modeling was performed using the much higher level of discharge the City sought in its initial application (995,000 gallons/day) rather than the level TCEQ‘s final order authorizes (822,500 gallons/day). The difference in discharge volume makes TCEQ‘s DO projection even more conservative. Because substantial evidence supports TCEQ‘s determination that the authorized discharge would satisfy Onion Creek‘s site-specific DO criterion and would not disturb existing uses, SOS‘s Tier 1 complaint fails under the applicable standard of review.
SOS presents a more robust assault on TCEQ‘s determination that the permitted discharge would not degrade Onion Creek‘s water quality. The gist of the argument is that Tier 2 must prohibit a cognizable change in any single component of the water‘s chemical composition because such a construction is (1) preordained by the Clean Water Act‘s “objective . . . to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation‘s waters”66 and (2) necessary to distinguish Tier 1 from Tier 2. SOS finds confirmation of such a granular approach in TCEQ‘s “Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards” (implementation procedures),67 in select cases from other jurisdictions, and in certain EPA guidance that is external to the record.68 We do not.
Tier 2‘s text is clear: degradation is a “lowering of water quality,” not a “lowering of water-quality parameters” or
TCEQ‘s implementation procedures also do not support the methodology SOS favors. As those procedures confirm, water quality is composed of a complex set of ecological circumstances affected by several “parameters of concern,” including but not limited to DO.71 Other parameters—such as bacteria, phosphorus, nitrogen, turbidity, foam and froth, temperature, sulfate, chloride, pH, toxic pollutants, radioactive materials, taste and odor, suspended solids, oil, and grease—may also be considered in evaluating water-quality impact, along with “any other constituent that could lower water quality.”72 And while the implementation procedures provide methods for individually evaluating these components, that process is consistent with TCEQ‘s whole-body approach because assessing overall health necessarily begins with an evaluation of the parts.73 The implementation procedures leave no doubt, however, that a parameter change is not the end of the matter.
To the contrary, those procedures substantiate a qualitative whole-body approach that involves a somewhat subjective evaluation informed by both numerical and non-numeric information.74
The qualitative nature of the Tier 2 antidegradation assessment is best exemplified by the provisions discussing loss of a water body‘s “assimilative capacity.”75 In SOS‘s
New discharges that use less than 10% of the existing assimilative capacity of the water body at the edge of the mixing zone are usually not considered to constitute potential degradation as long as the aquatic ecosystem in the area is not unusually sensitive to the pollutant of concern. New discharges that use 10% or greater of the existing assimilative capacity are not automatically presumed to constitute potential degradation but will receive further evaluation.76
Importantly, although DO has numeric criteria, which would make it amenable to assimilative-capacity screening, the implementation procedures expressly state that “[t]his screening procedure is not applicable to dissolved oxygen.”77 More importantly, the implementation procedures are express in not considering such changes to individual parameters as establishing degradation but rather as requiring “further evaluation.”78 The numbers are what the numbers are, so any “further evaluation” means assessing such parameters in connection with other considerations affecting water quality.
What SOS seems to find most compelling on this topic is a provision in the procedures providing the following as one of the “[e]xamples where degradation is likely to occur“:
Increased loading of oxygen-demanding substances that is projected to decrease dissolved oxygen by more than 0.5 mg/L for a substantial distance in a water body that has exceptional quality aquatic life and a relatively unique and potentially sensitive community of aquatic organisms.79
In SOS‘s estimation, this provision proves not only that degradation of water quality is determined on a parameter-by-parameter basis but also that if a 0.5 mg/L projected decrease in DO is “likely” degradation, then a 1.44 mg/L projected decrease, like the one anticipated for Onion Creek, certainly is.
There are several flaws in SOS‘s extrapolated conclusion. First, the cited example refers to water that has “exceptional quality aquatic life” and a “relatively unique and potentially sensitive community of aquatic organisms,” which Onion Creek does not.80 Second, it applies when a 0.5 mg/L decrease is projected “for a substantial distance in a water body,” not just at the discharge point. Third, and most importantly, the IPs expressly state that even under these circumstances, such a change in exceptional waters is only an
The following examples are intended to provide general guidelines as to when degradation becomes likely. The examples do not define degradation, nor do they address all pollutants and situations that can cause degradation. Final determinations are case-specific and can depend on the characteristics of the water body and local aquatic communities. Lower increases in loading may constitute degradation in some circumstances, and higher loadings may not constitute degradation in other situations.81
Consistent with the water-quality standards, the implementation procedures describe a qualitative assessment of degradation based on overall water quality, rather than a granulated parameter-by-parameter approach. TCEQ perhaps could have adopted rules and standards implementing a parameter-by-parameter approach, but it did not. Instead, the antidegradation assessment allows TCEQ to make an informed judgment call as to whether any changes in the water body‘s chemistry lower water quality by more than a de minimis extent.82 SOS may be uncomfortable with the latitude and discretion such an approach affords state regulators, but both the rules and the implementation procedures not only allow, but contemplate, a qualitative assessment on a whole-water basis.83
In support of SOS, some amici point to section 307.5(c)(2)(B) of the antidegradation rules as calling for a parameter-specific antidegradation review. That subsection, which discusses “[g]eneral provisions for implementing the antidegradation policy,” says: “For dissolved oxygen, analyses of degradation under Tier 2 must utilize the same critical conditions as are used to protect instream criteria. For other parameters, appropriate conditions may vary.”84 But this only proves the point. The antidegradation policy recognizes that water quality is composed of a variety of parameters and that an antidegradation review necessarily starts by analyzing parameters of concern individually. Yet the Tier 2 standard is couched in terms of the whole, not the individual parameters. This is not to say that changes in a single parameter could never be significant enough to lower water quality, but the ultimate determination is TCEQ‘s to make based on an evaluation of the water‘s post-discharge quality.
SOS invokes the Clean Water Act‘s “objective” and “goals” and a couple of EPA guidance documents as supporting a contrary construction.85 But SOS points to nothing that commands a parameter-based
Finally, SOS‘s complaint that TCEQ improperly “collapsed” the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards is mistaken. SOS contends the final order focused only on whether the permit would protect existing uses, not on the distinct question of whether the permit would lower water quality in Onion Creek. By way of example, SOS points to Finding of Fact (FOF) 90, which states: “A Tier 2 review confirmed that no significant degradation of water quality is expected in Onion Creek, which has been identified as having high aquatic life uses, such that the existing uses will be maintained and protected.” While TCEQ‘s Tier 2 findings refer to both degradation and existing uses, those are the words the standard employs. As the court of appeals observed, the “substantial overlap” in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards “mak[es] it difficult to analyze the two standards separately.”88
Other fact findings confirm TCEQ‘s understanding and maintenance of the distinction, including FOF 78—“An antidegradation review ensures that a proposed discharge does not impair the uses or degrade the water quality of the receiving waters“—and FOF 88, which states: “The antidegradation requirements have been satisfied because (a) DO will be maintained at concentrations that support a healthy aquatic life community; [and] (b) a phosphorous limit has been imposed to assure that the proposed discharge will protect and maintain the water quality of water bodies that exceed fishable/swimmable quality. . . .” Besides that, the final order and evidence in the record more than adequately demonstrate that TCEQ applied the correct standard in conducting a Tier 2 review that evaluated both the impact on existing uses and the potential for degradation.89 To the extent SOS faults the order for failing to use the definitional
C. Compliance with APA Section 2001.141
We turn now to SOS‘s argument that TCEQ‘s final order is invalid because it lacks a statement of “underlying facts” to support several “ultimate” fact findings and conclusions of law.90 APA section 2001.141 requires a final agency order to include separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.91 In addition, any fact finding “set forth in statutory language” must be accompanied by “a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the finding.”92 Such findings need not take any particular form,93 but “[p]roper underlying (basic) findings of fact” should be (1) “stated as the agency‘s findings” rather than as recitals of evidence or summaries of testimony and (2) “clear, specific, non-conclusory, and supportive of the ultimate statutory findings.”94 A statement of underlying fact findings must generally enable a reviewing court to “fairly and reasonably” say that the basic facts “support the statutorily required criteria.”95
In addition to incorporating the ED‘s extensive responses to public comments, the final order includes more than two dozen fact findings devoted to addressing TCEQ‘s antidegradation review and compliance with applicable water-quality standards. Among them are various findings to the effect that (1) the ED performed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 antidegradation review in accordance with the applicable standards; (2) DO limits in the draft permit will protect Onion Creek‘s existing uses; (3) antidegradation requirements have been satisfied because “DO will be maintained at concentrations that support a healthy aquatic life community“; (4) Tier 2 review confirmed no significant degradation of water quality is expected; (5) Tier 2 review confirmed that existing uses will be maintained and protected; and (6) “[t]he proposed discharge will comply with the applicable antidegradation requirements.” The ED‘s response to public comments further explains TCEQ‘s Tier 2 review and the ED‘s determination that “no lowering of water quality by greater than a de minimis amount is expected.” SOS faults these findings, and the final order itself, for failing to elaborate more specifically about how the projected drop in DO concentrations
First, SOS did not preserve the complaint for judicial review. SOS‘s motion for rehearing in the administrative proceeding did not assert that the agency had omitted the particular findings it now contends were required to support the final order. The motion‘s sprinkling of generalized complaints about the absence of “underlying fact findings” is insufficient in itself but even more so because those complaints were not linked to the specific fact findings assailed on appeal.97 To preserve a complaint for judicial review, any noncompliance with the APA‘s fact-finding requirements must first be raised in the administrative proceeding “with the requisite degree of specificity.”98 Failure to present such an objection with at least the specificity the complaining party contends the agency was obligated to provide deprives the agency of “an opportunity to discover and correct the error, if any, or articulate a justification for its action.”99
Second, underlying fact findings are not required because TCEQ‘s findings of fact are not set out in “statutory language.”100 The regulatory language contained in TCEQ‘s antidegradation rules is not statutory language for which underlying findings are required.101 In arguing otherwise, SOS erroneously describes section 26.027 of the Water Code as establishing mandatory criteria that TCEQ must consider in conducting an antidegradation review. It plainly does not.
A statement of supportive facts is required “only when the ultimate fact finding embodies a mandatory fact finding set forth in the relevant enabling act” or when it “represent[s] the criteria the legislature has directed the agency to consider in
Our leading case on the matter illustrates the difference. In Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., the Legislature directed the agency to establish criteria for determining whether to grant a certificate of need for a proposed project.104 In doing so, the Legislature specifically identified five criteria that “the commission must include” in its rules for making that determination.105 We held that those mandated criteria, subsequently promulgated in the agency‘s rules, are the type of factors that fall within the scope of fact findings that must be accompanied by a statement of underlying facts.106 In contrast, the Legislature‘s requirement that the agency consider six additional factors in developing additional criteria did not.107 Although the agency also adopted those factors among its general criteria for reviewing certificate-of-need requests, the Legislature had not required it to do so.108 For permissible waste discharges, section 26.027 of the Water Code does not mandate any specific findings, criteria, or factors for issuing a discharge permit.109 It certainly does not require the agency to make negative findings on the full panoply of laws and regulations that permit issuance would not offend.
To construe the statute as SOS wishes would result in an absurd extension of the APA‘s language that would infect every TCEQ order with potentially nullifying error for failing to identify and provide underlying findings of fact that a permit‘s issuance complies with every federal and state law, rule, and regulation. Such a burden would be impossibly onerous and an unreasonable construction and application of the APA.110 Accordingly, we must and do reject it.
III. Conclusion
In granting the City of Dripping Springs‘s wastewater discharge permit application, TCEQ did not violate either section 2001.141 or the antidegradation rules and implementation procedures. We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ judgment upholding the permit‘s issuance.
John P. Devine
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: April 11, 2025