Opinion ID: 2229772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The One-Year Permit was Invalid.

Text: This controversy involves the validity of the Board's original decision to issue a solid waste permit to SDDS. Such were the words of the third sentence of SDDS I. SDDS I at 504. In the third issue of that case, we sought to determine if the facility was in the public interest of the entire state. SDDS I at 512-13. Via SDCL 34A-6-1.13, no solid waste permit may be issued in a contested case unless the Board finds that to do so is in the public interest. We noted that findings of fact must be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. SDCL 1-26-25; SDDS I at 512; Lemke v. Rabenberg's, Inc., 89 S.D. 386, 233 N.W.2d 336 (1975). However, the Board did not incorporate ... anything upon which we can discern the underlying basis for its public interest finding. SDDS I at 512. Because no findings of fact existed to support public interest, we had no basis upon which to conduct a review and could not reach the merits of TIP's argument. Though we did not specifically reverse the trial court's affirmance of the permit, we also did not approve of the issuance. One thing is absolute: Without proof of public interest, no permit could have been properly issued. SDCL 34A-6-1.13. This is why we remanded the caseto obtain the findings of fact that would allow for such a permit. No proof of public interest, then no permit. That is the status of the law and SDDS I. Granted, we did not specifically revoke or invalidate the permit; however, the permit's status with this Court is not under lock and key. Three separate writings reveal the intent of this Court's meaning in SDDS I. In SDDS I at 515 (Henderson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), Justice Henderson stated, Although I agree in the result of the opinion written by Justice Amundson, in reversing the approval of the permit ... On page 271 in SDDS II, Chief Justice Miller inserted the following footnote in the majority writing: This court, in [ SDDS I ], reversed the Department of Water and Natural Resources which had granted the first permit to SDDS. Albeit, the Department may not have issued the permit, and thus, the incorrect administrative agency was named, nonetheless, the footnote clearly intended to indicate that the permit was invalid. Finally, in SDDS II at 273 (Amundson, J., concurring in result), Justice Amundson wrote that SDDS' permit had not been properly granted by the Board as held in SDDS I, which he authored. Three Justices who voted in SDDS I have held that the permit was not properly issued. Using the logic of SDDS' brief, because neither Justice Wuest nor Justice Sabers wrote to the contrary, they apparently did not disagree with the view of the other three Justices. In fact, neither dissented to the footnote in SDDS II. The bottom line is we found that the permit lacked the requisite statutory public interest support, and remanded the case for SDDS to prove such support. We have yet to see such a finding (unquestionably because two special elections in this state have shown that the public disapproves of the waste site) and therefore, the permit cannot be said to have ever been valid.