Opinion ID: 2075830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assessment of Future Development

Text: Finally, appellees maintain that the Board erroneously assumed future malfunctioning of individual on-site disposal systems in reaching its decision. The Board found: The disposal of wastes from future public or private development could inherently result in sources of pollution which would prevent the attainment of swimming or public water supply to the extent that those uses are otherwise attainable. Board Decision, Finding 2(j). Appellees contend that the Board may consider only existing public and private pollution sources but not potential sources. See 10 V.S.A. § 1253(e)(4). This claim has no merit. The Board properly assessed the effects of future pollution pursuant to § 1253(e)(2) (existing and potential use of waters for... legitimate purposes). Consideration of potential uses of water cannot proceed without consideration of potential pollution. Again, the Board must be given reasonable latitude in interpreting its own enabling legislation; its inquiry here is entirely consistent with the language and apparent intent of § 1253(e). While the Board cannot engage in baseless speculation regarding future pollution, here the record reflects substantial evidence that discharges from malfunctioning on-site systems are likely to increase in the future. Evaluating the harm from future sources of pollution is similarly consistent with the Board's obligation under federal law to consider the feasibility of attaining Class B designated uses that were not then existing. 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g). Appellees and the superior court are concerned that consideration of potential pollution would result in the reclassification of every Class B water affected by upslope development. Such pessimism is unwarranted. Pollution sources are but one factor of many the Board must evaluate in determining whether an existing classification is contrary to the public interest and whether to initiate a reclassification proceeding. We conclude that the Board did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or contrary to law. The decision of the trial court is reversed and the decision of the Water Resources Board is reinstated.