Case Title: Town of Groton v. Agency of Natural Resources

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Town of Groton v. Agency of Natural Resources  (2000-428); 172 Vt. 578;
772 A.2d 1103

[Filed 19-Apr-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-428

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

Town of Groton	                     }	APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	Caledonia Superior Court
                                     }	
Agency of Natural Resources	     }
                                     }	DOCKET NO. 44-2-99Cacv

                                        Trial Judge: Alan W. Cheever 

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The Town of Groton appeals from the Caledonia Superior Court's review
  of the water  resources board's decision to deny the Town's application for
  a stream alteration permit it requested  in order to repair and replace a
  dam located on the Wells River within the Town.  The court upheld  the
  board's decision to deny the permit.  The Town claims that it was error to
  affirm the board's  decision because the board erred in (1) refusing to
  admit evidence presented by the Town regarding  its use of the water in the
  dam impoundment area for fire safety, and (2) in using the condition of the 
  river after the dam was washed out in 1998 as the baseline in its
  determination that granting the  permit would result in a change in the
  watercourse that would "significantly damage fish life."(FN1) 10 V.S.A.
  § 1023(a)(2).  We affirm.

       The dam in question was first erected in 1803 and has been repaired or
  replaced twice since.   In July 1996, the Town filed an incomplete stream
  alteration permit with the Agency of Natural  Resources to repair the dam. 
  See 10 V.S.A. § 1022.  In August of that year, the ANR requested that  the
  Town supplement its application to provide necessary information, but the
  Town was unable to  do so until February 1998 because the Town's
  representative handling the project had medical  problems.  In the
  meantime, however, in January 1998, the dam was destroyed by ice and high
  water.  Once the dam was destroyed, the fish habitat in the river improved,
  and species of trout and sculpin  again began to inhabit this portion of
  the Wells River.  This stretch of the river is now one of the  Wells
  River's few high quality habitats for sculpin, trout, and salmon.  

 

       Because the river system reverted to its natural state, and 10 V.S.A.
  § 1023 requires that any  permit be denied if the "proposed change" in the
  watercourse would "significantly damage fish life,"  the ANR denied the
  permit.  The Town appealed to the board under 10 V.S.A. § 1024(a), and the 
  board reviewed the permit application de novo, as required.  The board
  found that issuing the permit  would "significantly damage fish life," id.
  § 1023(a)(2), and thus determined that, under the factors  set out in 10
  V.S.A. § 1023, it had to deny the permit.  The Town subsequently appealed
  to the  superior court under 10 V.S.A. §1024(b), and the court affirmed the
  board's decision, ruling that  there was no error in excluding the fire
  safety evidence or in using the post-washout river conditions  as the
  baseline in its analysis.  The Town appeals and renews its previous
  arguments, but otherwise  does not challenge the findings of the board.  

       Our review of a board decision that is on appeal here after review in
  the superior court is the  same as that of the superior court: whether the
  board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or contrary to  law.  In re Town of
  Sherburne, 154 Vt. 596, 604, 581 A.2d 274, 278-79 (1990).  We look to see 
  whether the decision makes sense to a "reasonable person," id. at 605, 581 A.2d  at 279, and the  board has wide discretion in making its findings and
  conclusions as long as they are not inconsistent  with legislative and
  agency policy, see id.; accord In re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc., 167 Vt. 75, 79,