Opinion ID: 1179643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Consider Offsite Alternatives

Text: OPAL first contends that the EIS is legally deficient because it does not include analysis of offsite alternatives. The EIS discussed three alternative proposals: a no-action proposal and two different configurations of a proposed landfill on the same site. It did not include discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposal. SEPA requires that an EIS contain a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). SEPA's administrative rules provide that an EIS must consider as alternatives those actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. WAC § 197-11-440(5)(b). Under current administrative rules and case law, whether an EIS must include consideration of offsite alternatives depends on whether the project is public or private. An EIS for a private project on a specific site need only consider a no action alternative plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site. WAC § 197-11-440(5)(d); Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39, 873 P.2d 498. A public-project EIS must also include a discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposal. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39, 873 P.2d 498. To determine whether a project is public or private, we look first to who sponsored or initiated it because the administrative rules define a private project as any proposal primarily initiated or sponsored by an individual or entity other than an agency. WAC § 197-11-780. The classification rests not on nominal sponsorship but on a factual assessment of the level of public involvement in the project. See Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39-40, 873 P.2d 498. In this case, we think it clear that the project was primarily sponsored and initiated by Waste Management, a private entity. Contrasting the facts of this case with those of Weyerhaeuser illuminates the private nature of the instant proposal. In Weyerhaeuser, the private corporation acted pursuant to a contract with the county when it sought to develop a new in-county landfill site, id. at 39, 873 P.2d 498; Waste Management has no such obligation to develop a landfill for Adams County [1] . In fact, Adams County has not yet formally decided to use the proposed facility to meet its own waste disposal needs. The private entity in Weyerhaeuser had a longstanding relationship with the county, including the county's involvement in the formation of the corporation to handle the county's entire solid waste system. Id. Waste Management currently is not involved in handling Adams County's solid wastes nor was the county involved in creating the corporation. Alternatively, a project may be designated public because a government entity seeks to fulfill its responsibility to perform a traditional governmental function through the project. See id. at 40-41, 873 P.2d 498. For example, in Weyerhaeuser, we noted that a private company that had been given the job of operating the `whole Pierce County solid waste system ...' was performing a governmental function. Id. at 39, 873 P.2d 498 (citation omitted). Thus, even though it was a private company that applied for a conditional use permit to construct a new landfill, id. at 29, 873 P.2d 498, we held that the proposed project was public because its purpose was to fulfill the County's responsibility for the collection and disposal of solid waste, see id. at 40, 873 P.2d 498. This governmental function test ensures that a government agency cannot avoid the requirement of environmental consideration of alternative sites by simply contracting with a private entity to carry out its public duty. See id. at 41, 873 P.2d 498. OPAL contends that Weyerhaeuser established a rule of law that an EIS for a landfill project must always include consideration of offsite alternatives. In so contending, OPAL misconstrues our governmental function analysis in that case. Our statement that regardless of whether the County deals with a private company, the collection and disposal of solid waste is the County's responsibility, id. at 41, 873 P.2d 498, must be read in context. We were not creating a hard and fast rule that any activity relating to solid waste handling that takes place within a county constitutes a public project of that county, even where, as here, it does not even involve disposal of that county's own solid waste. Rather, the key to the analysis is whether the governmental entity has, by means of the project at issue, allowed a private entity to fulfill the government's responsibility for handling the solid waste within its jurisdiction. Under the governmental function analysis, we conclude that the proposed project is not one through which Adams County seeks to perform a traditional government function. Waste Management seeks to build a landfill to serve customers throughout the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Canada. Adams County has no governmental responsibility for the solid wastes generated outside of the county, such that this project could be perceived as an attempt to contract with a private entity to fulfill that responsibility. Even were Adams County to decide to use the landfill for the wastes generated in the county, Waste Management estimated that Adams County's solid waste would constitute less than two percent of the anticipated annual volume of wastes disposed of at the facility. In conclusion, we hold that Waste Management's proposed landfill project was properly characterized as private, because it was primarily sponsored and initiated by a private entity and is not intended to fulfill the solid waste responsibilities of Adams County. As such, the EIS did not need to include a discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposed development.