In the 

Missouri Court of Appeals 

Western District

IN THE MATTER OF: TRENTON 

FARMS RE, LLC

Permit No. MOGS10500,

Appellant,

v.

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES, HICKORY 

NEIGHBORS UNITED, INC.,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

WD79527

OPINION FILED:

November 22, 2016

Appeal from the Clean Water Commission

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Karen King Mitchell, 

Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

Trenton Farms RE, LLC ("Trenton Farms") appeals the decision of the Missouri 

Clean Water Commission ("CWC") to deny Trenton Farms' permit application for a swine 

concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO") to be operated in Grundy County, 

Missouri. Trenton Farms raises five points of error on appeal, four alleging that the CWC 

erred in its denial because it misinterpreted the permit requirements of 10 CSR 20-
2

6.010(3)1causing the regulation to be misapplied and resulting in violations of Trenton 

Farms' constitutional rights. Trenton Farms' final point alleges that the CWC erred in 

finding that Trenton Farms' application did not adequately prove that the CAFO operation 

was protected from a one hundred-year flood as required by 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A).2 We 

affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In Missouri, the Clean Water Act ("CWA") is implemented by two administrative 

agencies: the Missouri Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") and the CWC. The 

DNR is Missouri's "general environmental agency charged with administering the 

programs assigned to the Department relating to environmental control and the 

conservation and management of natural resources." Mo. Soybean Ass'n v. Mo. Clean 

Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Mo. banc 2003) (internal quotation omitted). The 

CWC is charged by statute with a number of duties and granted numerous powers 

including: 

(1) the "general supervision of the administration and enforcement" of the 

Missouri Clean Water Law, sec. 644.026.1(1); (2) developing 

"comprehensive plans and programs for the prevention, control and 

abatement of new or existing pollution of the waters of the state."

sec.644.026.1(2); (3) identifying waters of the state and prescribing water 

quality standards for them, sec.644.026.1(7); (4) the power to promulgate 

rules and regulations to enforce and implement Missouri's Clean Water Law, 

and the duties imposed on the state by the CWA, sec.644.026.1(8); and (5) 

the power to exercise all incidental powers necessary to carry out the 

purposes of Missouri's Clean Water Law, and to assure that the State of 

Missouri complies with the CWA, sec.644.026.1(16).

 

1 All regulatory references to 10 CSR 20-6 are to the Missouri Code of State Regulations (2014) unless 

otherwise indicated.

2 All regulatory references to 10 CSR 20-8 are to the Missouri Code of State Regulations (2012) unless 

otherwise indicated.
3

Id. at 19 n.15. The CWC's "domicile" is within the DNR. Section 644.021.1. DNR reviews 

all applications for CAFOs and determines eligibility for permits. 10 CSR 20-6.010(2). 

Such decisions, however, are reviewed by the CWC and the CWC acts as the final deciding 

agency regarding whether an applicant will or will not receive a permit. Section 644.026.1.

On April 6, 2015, Trenton Farms applied to the DNR3for a state no-discharge 

operating permit for a swine CAFO ("Permit Application"). The Permit Application was 

reviewed by DNR employee Greg Caldwell ("Caldwell"). Caldwell determined that the 

Permit Application met all statutory and regulatory requirements and, on August 12, 2015, 

DNR issued Permit MOGS10500 ("Permit") to Trenton Farms to operate the requested 

swine CAFO. 

Hickory Neighbors United, Inc. ("Hickory Neighbors") filed a Petition for Appeal 

of the Permit to the Administrative Hearing Commission ("AHC") on August 28, 2015, 

and a subsequent Amended Petition for Appeal ("Amended Petition") on September 22, 

2015. Trenton Farms intervened in the AHC action, and the AHC held a hearing on 

Hickory Neighbors' Amended Petition on October 23, 2015. The AHC found that DNR 

met its burden of showing that the operating permit was issued in accordance with 

applicable laws and recommended that the grant of the Permit be upheld ("Recommended 

Decision"). The Recommended Decision was transmitted to the CWC on January 4, 2016. 

The CWC heard additional oral argument from the parties on February 17, 2016, issuing 

 

3 The DNR staff in the Division of Environmental Quality, Water Protection Program, are responsible for 

administering the Missouri Clean Water Law, including issuing CAFO permits. 10 CSR 20-1.010(3). The CWC, 

which is ultimately charged with conserving Missouri's waterways, maintains oversight over the permits and is the 

agency ultimately responsible for the final granting or denying of a CAFO permit. 10 CSR 20-1.020.
4

its Final Decision on February 24, 2016 ("Final Decision"). The CWC disagreed with the

ultimate findings of the AHC, instead finding that the Permit was not appropriately and 

lawfully issued to Trenton Farms because DNR failed to determine that Trenton Farms was 

a "continuing authority," as required by 10 CSR 20-6.010(3), and further that DNR failed 

to adequately determine that the swine CAFO would be protected in the event of a one 

hundred-year flood in accordance with 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A). The Final Decision by the 

CWC overruled the DNR's grant of the Permit to Trenton Farms. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

Section 644.051.6 provides that decisions by the CWC shall be subject to appellate 

review pursuant to chapter 536 of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act. Section 

536.140.2 provides that, on review, this Court may determine whether the action of the 

agency: (1) violates a constitutional provision; (2) is in excess of statutory authority or 

jurisdiction of the agency; (3) is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon 

the whole record; (4) is unauthorized by law; (5) is made upon unlawful procedure or 

without a fair trial; (6) is arbitrary capricious or unreasonable; or (7) involves an abuse of 

discretion. 

We give deference to the agency's findings of fact so long as they are supported by 

competent and substantial evidence. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis v. Mo. State Bd. of 

Educ., 271 S.W.3d 1, 7, 12 (Mo. banc 2008). As to questions of law, this Court conducts 

its review de novo. Albanna v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 293 S.W.3d 423, 

428 (Mo. banc 2009); ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 

854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 
5

Discussion

I.

As it is dispositive of this appeal, we will first discuss Trenton Farms' final Point 

Relied On. In Point Relied On V, Trenton Farms alleges that the CWC erred in denying 

the Permit in that "there was no evidence in the record that the barns were not protected 

from inundation by the 100-year flood."4 

The Manure Storage Design Regulations, which apply to this type of CAFO 

operation, require that "[m]anure storage structures, confinement buildings, open lots, 

composting pads, and other manure storage areas in the production area shall be protected 

from inundation or damage due to the one hundred-year flood." 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A). 

This protection may be accomplished by constructing all listed sites above the one hundredyear flood plain or by including with the permit application certification from an engineer 

that all relevant sites are protected.

Trenton Farms argues that there was sufficient evidence presented to the CWC to 

support a conclusion that the manure management barns of the CAFO were adequately 

 

4 We agree with Hickory Neighbors that, as drafted, the Point Relied On incorrectly states the burden of 

proof. It was not the burden of Hickory Neighbors or the CWC to show that there was "no evidence" that the barns 

were "not protected" but rather the regulations require that a permit applicant and the DNR bear the burden of 

affirmatively proving that certain portions of the CAFO facility are protected against a one hundred-year flood. See 

10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A). Despite the wording of the Point Relied On, Trenton Farms is ultimately raising a 

challenge to the CWC's finding that the engineer's certificate filed with the Permit Application was insufficient to 

meet the burden of Trenton Farms and the DNR in demonstrating that the CAFO operation was adequately 

protected. Thus, we need not enter into a detailed discussion of the burden of proof applicable to each of the parties.

We further note that Hickory Neighbors' Amended Petition challenged the validity of the Permit because 

Trenton Farms failed to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 98-03, as opposed to 10 CSR 20-

8.300(5)(A). The AHC's Recommended Decision held that 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A) was promulgated for the 

purposes of implementing Executive Order 98-03 to CAFOs. As such, the AHC interpreted Hickory Neighbors'

allegation that Trenton Farms failed to meet the requirements of Executive Order 98-03 as an allegation that Trenton 

Farms failed to meet the requirements of 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A). The CWC appears to have adopted this 

interpretation and Trenton Farms does not raise the issue on appeal. Thus, we too review the parties arguments as 

they relate to the properly adopted rule 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A).
6

protected from a one hundred-year flood. First, Trenton Farms relies on the testimony of 

Caldwell who reviewed the Permit Application on behalf of DNR. Caldwell testified that 

Trenton Farms submitted a map with the application showing the flood plain but it was 

difficult to determine where the buildings would be placed on that map. He also noted that 

the flood boundary map crossed topographical lines, which prevented him from 

determining whether the CAFO was located within flood boundary lines based strictly on 

the map submitted. As a result, he obtained a FEMA map and a soil data map to determine 

that the CAFO was not actually located within the one hundred-year flood plain. He 

testified that his determination was based solely on the three additional maps that he 

obtained and which were entered into evidence by DNR. Unfortunately, as noted by 

Hickory Neighbors, the maps identified and entered into evidence by the DNR and 

allegedly relied upon by Caldwell are from counties other than Grundy.

5

 Ultimately, 

although the AHC found that Caldwell was credible, it found that his conclusions merely 

went to the issue of flooding of the soil and were not actually dispositive of the issue of 

whether the CAFO project was located in a FEMA Zone A floodplain. 

 

5

It appears that these maps are wholly unrelated to the Grundy CAFO site and call into question Caldwell's 

testimony. When the discrepancy was pointed out to Caldwell he responded that he did not know why the maps 

were from different counties and that the "map unit [he] clicked on in there was in Grundy County." It was possible 

that map was part of a series that included multiple counties. Caldwell testified that he used topographic lines as 

well as the "identify tool" that was part of the map to confirm that it was in Grundy County as well as the map 

numbers which corresponded to Grundy County. It is not clear whether Caldwell incorrectly relied on maps from 

surrounding counties or the wrong maps were printed and submitted as exhibits. The AHC accepted the map 

exhibits as offered subject to objection from Hickory Neighbors noting that "[the Commission's] initial thought is 

that he has testified that he relied on those documents and, therefore, for what they are worth," they are admitted. 

We find that we need not resolve the discrepancy between the locations of the maps, however, because the AHC 

found--and the CWC agreed--that Caldwell's testimony was not dispositive of the ultimate issue of floodplain 

location. 
7

Grundy County Emergency Management Director, Glen Briggs ("Briggs"), 

submitted an affidavit in support of Trenton Farms stating that he concluded that the CAFO 

building site is not located in the FEMA Zone A floodplain--also known as a one hundredyear floodplain. The AHC, however, noted that the orientation of the buildings on the map 

examined by Briggs did not match the building site plan submitted by Trenton Farms and, 

thus, found his conclusions to be irrelevant.

The final source of evidence that the CAFO was adequately protected from a one 

hundred-year flood came from the certification of the Permit Application. As part of the 

application, Todd Van Maanen ("Van Maanen"), a Missouri licensed civil engineer, 

certified that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, "the manure 

management and containment system is designed in general conformance with applicable 

laws, codes, and regulations as of the date of signing." The AHC found that Caldwell and 

DNR were entitled to rely on this certification to find that the CAFO complied with 10 

CSR 20-8.300(5)(A) and ultimately found this certification was sufficient evidence for 

DNR to conclude that Trenton Farms complied with the regulation. 

The CWC agreed with the AHC's findings as to the testimony of Caldwell and 

Briggs6 but disagreed as to the AHC's conclusions regarding the engineer's certification. 

While the AHC interpreted the certification to mean that Van Maanen certified the CAFO 

buildings were protected from inundation or damage due to a one hundred-year flood, the 

 

6 The CWC also agreed with the AHC's finding that the testimony of Hickory Neighbors' engineer, Kathy 

Martin, did not conclusively establish that the proposed CAFO buildings were located in the one hundred-year 

floodplain. Since the CWC ultimately found that Trenton Farms had no evidence to show compliance with 10 CSR 

20-8.300(5)(A), and it bore the burden of showing compliance, we need not discuss Martin's testimony. 
8

CWC found that his certification did not go nearly so far. The CWC found that the 

engineer's certification and seal were attached only to the documents titled "Gestation 

Facility Manure Productions & Storage Calculations, Farrowing Facility Manure 

Production & Storage Calculations, and Gilt Development Facility Manure Production & 

Storage Calculations." Thus, the engineer's certification could only be interpreted to state 

that Van Maanen certified that the Production and Storage Calculations of the manure 

management and containment system complied with the applicable laws, codes and 

regulations. There was no evidence to suggest that Van Maanen intended to certify the 

compliance of all CAFO buildings and operations location as to the one hundred-year 

floodplain.

Further, as Hickory Neighbors notes in its brief, the certification only states that the 

certification applies to "the manure management and containment system." 10 CSR 20-

8.300(5)(A) requires evidence that the manure storage structures be protected, but also that 

there be protection for "confinement buildings, open lots, composting pads, and other 

manure storage areas in the production area." Even were we not mandated to give 

deference to the CWC's findings of fact regarding the breadth of the certification, we note 

that there is no evidence in the Petition Application to support a finding that Trenton Farms 

complied with the flood protection for these other areas or, in the alternative, evidence that 

this particular swine CAFO did not include such other areas and thus no certification of 

protection was needed. Trenton Farms repeatedly argues that there is nothing in the record 

that would indicate that the certification did not apply to the design of the entire facility, 

thus the CWC was erroneous in deciding that it did not meet the requirements of 10 CSR 
9

20-8.300(5)(A). This argument ignores the plain language of the engineer's certification,

which states it only applies to the "manure management and containment system," making 

no mention of the other sites required to be protected under the regulation. Without some 

evidence or testimony that these other sites were similarly protected or not part of the 

CAFO, the CWC, as the finder of fact, was free to find the engineer's certification did not 

fully comply with the regulations.

We give deference to the CWC's findings of fact and will overturn their judgment 

only if it is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence; is arbitrary, capricious, 

unreasonable, or involves an abuse of discretion; or the decision is unauthorized by law. 

M.A.H. v. Mo. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 447 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). It was 

not unreasonable for the CWC to make the same findings as the AHC that the testimony 

presented regarding the floodplain was insufficient to establish that the CAFO would be 

adequately protected. The maps relied on by Caldwell were suspect because they were 

identified as representing other irrelevant counties, and the map relied on by Briggs had 

the buildings oriented differently than the site plan submitted by Trenton Farms. Further, 

although Trenton Farms interprets the engineer's certification by Van Maanen differently, 

the CWC's interpretation was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The clear language 

of the certification states that "manure management and containment system" conforms to 

applicable laws, codes and regulations, but makes no mention of the other areas and 

structures listed in 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A). It was also reasonable for the CWC to question 

why the certification was only attached to the manure containment calculations and not the 

Permit Application as a whole, if it was indeed intended to apply to the entire Permit--
10

including areas beyond the manure containment system. Under section 327.411.1, the 

professional seal only applies to "all documents sealed by the licensee." Given that the 

seal was only affixed to a certain subset of documents, it is reasonable for the fact finder 

to believe it was not intended to provide a certification to the entire permit. Further, 

subsection 3 of 327.411 states that a professional licensee may affix his seal "specifying 

the particular technical submissions, or portions thereof, intended to be authenticated by 

the seal, and disclaiming any responsibility for all other technical submissions relating to 

or intended to be used for any part or part of the [project]." In this case, the seal specifically 

stated it applied to the "manure management and containment center." While it did not 

expressly disclaim the rest of the Permit Application, it was reasonable for the CWC to 

interpret this language as an intent by the engineer to limit his certification pursuant to 

section 327.411.3. How to interpret the certification was soundly within the CWC's

discretion. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot overturn the factual determination 

of the CWC. 

Because we find that the CWC did not err in determining that Trenton Farms' Permit 

Application failed to adequately establish that it was in compliance with 10 CSR 20-

8.300(5)(A), whether the CWC properly interpreted the requirements for being a 

"continuing authority" is immaterial. However, because the record indicates that Trenton 

Farms may still retain the right to seek a CAFO permit from the DNR, we briefly address 

the issues raised in the first four points of Trenton Farms' brief.
11

II.

Trenton Farms' first four points on appeal challenge the finding by the CWC that 

Trenton Farms did not present evidence in its Permit Application that it was a "continuing 

authority" as required by 10 CSR 20-6.010(3). It argues that this finding was arbitrary, 

capricious, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion; was contrary to the law; was 

constitutionally invalid because it was void for vagueness as applied to Trenton Farms; and 

was constitutionally invalid because it violated Trenton Farms' right to due process.

"Administrative rules and regulations are interpreted under the same principles of 

construction as statutes." McGough v. Dir. of Revenue, 462 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Mo. App. 

E.D. 2015). Statutory interpretation is a matter of law which this Court reviews de novo. 

Albanna, 293 S.W.3d at 428.

Section 10 CSR 20-6.010(3) provides:

All applicants for construction permits or operating permits shall show, as 

part of their application, that a permanent organization exists which will 

serve as the continuing authority for the operation, maintenance, and 

modernization of the facility for which the application is made. Construction 

and first-time operating permits shall not be issued unless the applicant 

provides such proof to the department and the continuing authority has 

submitted a statement indicating acceptance of the facility.

"Continuing authority" is not a defined term in the regulations. See 10 CSR 20-2.010. Nor 

does it appear that the term has ever been interpreted by a Missouri court. In the absence 

of a given definition in a regulation, the word or term will be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning as derived from a dictionary. Teague v. Mo. Gaming Comm'n, 127 S.W.3d 679, 

686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). "The interpretation and construction of a statute by an agency 

charged with its administration is entitled to great weight." Beverly Enters.-Mo. Inc. v. 
12

Dept. of Soc. Servs., Div. of Med. Servs., 349 S.W.3d 337, 352 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). 

"However, it is inappropriate to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation 

that in any way expanded upon, narrowed, or was otherwise inconsistent with the plain and 

ordinary meaning of the words used in the regulation." Id. Regulations should be 

interpreted reasonably, and absurd interpretations should not be adopted. Dep't of Soc. 

Servs. v. Senior Citizens Nursing Home Dist. of Ray Cty., 224 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 

2007). 

The testimony regarding this Permit revealed that, historically, DNR interpreted the 

regulations to require only a showing that an entity was a permanent organization to satisfy 

the "continuing authority" requirements. Financial information has never been required. 

This was true for both new permits and permit renewals. At the Permit hearing before the 

AHC, Caldwell testified as follows:

[Trenton Farms]. Mr. Caldwell, let's talk about the application and the 

Department's interpretation of the continuing authority regulations and 

whether or not the finances of each applicant for a permit are relevant. I 

believe it's your testimony that the Department does not look at the financial 

wherewithal of any applicants?

[Caldwell]. No.

Q. So all industrial applicants that submit applications for construction 

permits or operating permits, the Department has never looked at the 

financial wherewithal or investigated it or asked them to submit any 

information concerning their finances to the Department of Natural 

Resources.

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. And they never asked any Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation or 

CAFO to submit any of their balance sheets or other financial information to 

qualify as a continuing authority?
13

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Even if they did, there are no regulations in the Missouri Clean Water 

Commission regulations that would instruct you or any other person at the 

Department of Natural Resources how to evaluate any financial information 

that's been submitted?

A. No.

Q. And would it be fair to say that any permit that comes up for reissuance 

after a five-year permit has expired and somebody has to apply to renew a 

permit, the Department has never asked any industrial or CAFO for any 

financial information when they renew a permit?

A. No.

Given its historical application, interpreting "continuing authority" to require financial 

disclosures was arbitrary as applied to Trenton Farms. CWC cannot change interpretations 

of "continuing authority" without some notice or other action. See section 536.010(4).7 

There is no evidence to suggest that this was an erroneous interpretation on behalf of the 

DNR or a particular employee of the DNR. To the contrary, recent discussion of changes 

to the regulations reveals a continued acceptance by the DNR and, therefore, the CWC that 

financial documents are not required submissions to prove "continuing authority." On 

September 15, 2016, DNR issued an Order of Rulemaking for 10 CSR 20-6.300 on behalf 

of the CWC and DNR which included comments to the rulemaking. Comment four stated:

Mr. Stephen Jeffery proposed additional language to 10 CSR 20-6.300(3)(E) 

that reads, "Balance sheet and income statement for the applicant prepared 

 

7 The required filings to prove "continuing authority" may not rise to the level of a rule under section 

536.010(6), because there is no evidence that the interpretation was a printed or published. All evidence, however,

indicates that prior to the Final Judgment in this case, all permit seekers attempting to prove they were a "continuing 

authority" only needed to show proof that they were a permanent entity. The CWC cannot abandon this

interpretation and require substantially more and different documentation of Trenton Farms without going through 

proper procedures to amend its rules. Section 536.021. 
14

by a certified public accountant showing the applicant has sufficient assets 

to serve as a continuing authority in accordance with 10 CSR 20-6.010(3)." 

This would require that any applicant for a CAFO operating permit submit a 

balance sheet and an income statement prepared by a certified public 

accountant as part of its application package. The purpose of requiring these 

commonly utilized financial documents is for the applicant to provide 

"proof" that it is financial viable to operate, maintain, and modernize its 

proposed CAFO facility, as required by the continuing authority rule, 10 CSR 

20-6.010(3).

Orders of Rulemaking from Department of Natural Resources, 2016 MO REG TEXT 418316 

(NS) (Sept. 15, 2016). In response, the DNR stated:

No changes were made as a result of this comment. Continuing authority 

requirements are contained in 10 CSR 20-6.010. Discussion of any proposed 

revisions to continuing authority requirements would need to be addressed 

during stakeholder meeting(s) for the revision of that regulation.

Id. Had a requirement for such balance sheets or financial information already existed in 

10 CSR 20-6.010(3), one would have expected the DNR to acknowledge such. Instead, 

the DNR recognized that this would be a revision to the existing requirements, requiring 

time for comment and revision of that particular regulation. While it appears that these 

comments were made by the DNR, they were done on behalf of the CWC, just as the DNR 

has been responsible for the interpretation of the submission requirements of 10 CSR 20-

6.010(3) on behalf of the CWC. Hickory Neighbors asks us to give deference to the CWC's 

new interpretation of the filing requirements to prove "continuing authority," arguing that 

the prior interpretation was given by DNR not CWC. This, however, ignores the actual 

agency structure of DNR and CWC, in which DNR has been given the authority by CWC 

to both review and issue permits and promulgate rules and regulations governing permits, 

both on behalf of the CWC. See Mo. Soybean Ass'n, 102 S.W.3d at 19. The CWC 
15

maintains oversight of these functions but it cannot choose to allow rules and regulations 

to be promulgated, issued, and implemented for extended periods of time until the CWC 

chooses to arbitrarily overturn the DNR's interpretation with no warning to the public or 

DNR and DNR agents, which the CWC has tasked with reviewing permits. Further, it 

would be disingenuous to then publish the original interpretation of the regulation even 

after it supposedly decided on a new and expanded interpretation. 

Further, to interpret the statute to require a permit applicant to submit the financial 

records of the "continuing authority" entity reads an additional requirement into the 

regulation that is not currently present. As written, 10 CSR 20-6.010(3) requires that a 

permit application "show, as part of their application, that a permanent organization exists 

which will serve as the continuing authority for the operation, maintenance, and 

modernization of the facility for which the application is made." (emphasis added). "For" 

has a number of accepted definitions but it is generally a function word used to indicate 

actions such as "preparation toward;" "in order to be, become or serve as;" "in order to 

bring about or further;" "with the purpose or object of;" "prerequisite to." WEBSTER'S 

THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED 886 (1993). In this case, it merely 

identifies the purpose that the continuing authority will serve. While having positive 

financials may ultimately be required to fulfil that function, evidence of such is not required 

to identify the entity which will serve the function--which is all the regulation requires. 

Hickory Neighbors and the CWC's interpretation asks this Court to transform "for" into 

"and" to require not only the identification of the "continuing authority" entity but also 

evidence that such entity also has the current financial ability to fulfill its future purpose.
16

The CWC did not have the authority to simply reinterpret 10 CSR 20-6.010(3) in a way 

that would effectively drastically modify its terms. See Matteson v. Dir. of Revenue, 909 

S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1995). An agency cannot change the plain meaning of a term 

used simply because it does not reflect the intent of the regulation. See Stiers v. Dir. of 

Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 611, 615-16 (Mo. banc 2016) (giving plain meaning to the word 

"and" despite agency's claim that doing so did not reflect the intent behind the regulation). 

If an agency desires such a change, it must be done through amending the regulation. Id.

at 616.

Because we find that CWC's interpretation of "continuing authority" is arbitrary and 

contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of the regulation, we need not enter into a 

review of Trenton Farms' constitutional challenges to CWC's interpretation to finally 

decide this point. 

As noted above, however, because Trenton Farms failed to adequately demonstrate 

that the entire swine CAFO operation was protected from a one hundred-year flood, as 

required by 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A), the CWC did not err in denying Trenton Farms' Permit 

Application. 

Motion for Attorneys' Fees on Appeal

Pursuant to Local Rule XXIX, Trenton Farms filed with this Court a Motion for 

Attorney's Fees and Expenses on appeal. We elected to take the motion with the case. The 

motion requested that, in the event Trenton Farms prevailed on appeal, this Court award 

Trenton Farms reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Given this Court's affirmance of 

the Final Decision, Trenton Farms' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses is denied.
17

Conclusion

We find that the CWC did not err in finding that Trenton Farms' Permit Application 

did not meet the requirements of 10 CSR 20-8.300(5)(A) and, therefore, Trenton Farms 

was not entitled to receive a permit for its purposed swine CAFO. We affirm.

__________________________________

Gary D. Witt, Judge

All concur