Case Title: In re Hinsdale Farm

Citation: 177 Vt. 115, 2004 VT 72, 858 A.2d 249

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Hinsdale Farm (2002-566); 177 Vt. 115; 858 A.2d 249

2004 VT 72

[Filed 13-Aug-2003]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 72

                                No. 2002-566

  In re Hinsdale Farm	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       	                                         Water Resources Board

                                                 November Term, 2003

  David J. Blythe, Chair

  Ronald A. Shems and John B. Kassel of Shems Dunkiel & Kassel PLLC,
    Burlington, for Appellants.

  Liam L. Murphy and Abby C. Moskovitz of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, LLP,
    Burlington, for Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., 
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Appellants Citizens for Safe Farming, Inc.,
  William J. and Bonnie F. Bly, Bethany and Shawn Bedard, and Steven and Jane
  Ann Kantor challenge a Water Resources Board (WRB) order dismissing their
  appeal.  They appealed a Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District
  decision issuing an agricultural dam permit (Permit) to Hinsdale Farm to
  construct a dairy waste storage facility.  The WRB dismissed the appeal for
  lack of jurisdiction.  We affirm. 
   
       ¶  2.  On August 19, 2002, the District issued Hinsdale an
  agricultural dam permit pursuant to its authority under the Vermont Dams
  Act, 10 V.S.A. § 1083a.  Citing 10 V.S.A. § 1099, appellants appealed the
  district's decision to the WRB.  In their Notice of Appeal, appellants
  asserted that the Permit was issued in error because it did not serve the
  public good, adversely affected scenic and recreational values, adversely
  affected water uses, was hazardous to public health, would contaminate
  ground and surface waters, was inadequately designed, failed to provide
  public benefits, would diminish property values, and would be a public
  safety risk.  Appellants also filed a Notice of Appeal in Chittenden
  Superior Court pursuant to V.R.C.P. 75.  In their superior court complaint,
  appellants insisted that the WRB had jurisdiction over their appeal, and
  that the second appeal was only a protective measure.

       ¶  3.  WRB Chair David J. Blythe determined at the prehearing
  conference that whether the WRB had jurisdiction to hear the appeal was a
  threshold issue that needed to be briefed, argued, and decided before the
  WRB could turn to the merits.  The WRB received briefing from the parties
  and convened on November 19, 2002 to hear oral argument on whether the WRB
  had jurisdiction over agricultural dam permit appeals.  In December 2002,
  the WRB issued a decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
   
       ¶  4.  The WRB relied on the plain language of the Vermont's Dams Act,
  focusing particularly on the fact that 10 V.S.A. § 1099, which governs
  appeals from dam permits, does not expressly provide the WRB with
  jurisdiction over appeals from district agricultural dam permit decisions. 
  Section 1099's silence as to how district decisions are to be appealed,
  when combined with the well-settled Vermont law that the jurisdiction of
  administrative bodies is limited to that which has been expressly conferred
  by statute, persuaded the WRB that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this
  appeal.  

       ¶  5.  We review the WRB's dismissal for lack of subject matter
  jurisdiction de novo.  Jordan v. State, 166 Vt. 509, 511,