Opinion ID: 862405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the mississippi gaming commission decision

Text: I. WHETHER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING COMMISSION ERRED IN DECIDING THAT UP TO 50% OF PINE HILLS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP'S CASINO CRUISE VESSEL MAY LAWFULLY BE LOCATED ON LAND ABOVE MEAN HIGH TIDE, AND ERRED IN APPROVING PINE HILL'S SITE PROPOSAL ¶17. The Gaming Commission's preliminary recommendation and ultimate approval of the Pine Hills site was predicated, in part, upon the location of at least fifty percent of the cruise vessel below mean high tide. The citizens groups now assert that the Commission's approval was contrary to statutory language, alleging that it allowed Pine Hills to place a cruise vessel on a site that was twenty percent on land above mean high tide. Despite the citizens groups' vigorous letter-writing campaigns, the record gives no indication that the groups ever objected to any specific aspects of the Commission's findings or raised the issues before the Commission. Thus, Pine Hills argues, as it did in the proceedings below, the issues now raised were not preserved at the administrative level and are barred from review. See United Cement Co. v. Safe Air for the Env't, Inc., 558 So. 2d 840, 843 (Miss. 1990). ¶18. Their failure to raise the issue before the Commission notwithstanding, the citizens groups' argument is predicated upon language of this Court taken out of context from the successful challenge to Pine Hills' first approved development plan in Mississippi Casino Operators Ass'n v. Mississippi Gaming Comm'n, 654 So. 2d 892 (Miss. 1995). In that case, this Court struck down the Gaming Commission's approval of Pine Hills' original plan to locate a gaming vessel on a man-made inlet and protected cove as contradictory to the Gaming Commission's own Regulation No. 2. Casino Operators, 654 So. 2d at 894. Regulation No. 2 provides as follows for the location of cruise vessels in: Waters within the State of Mississippi which lie adjacent to the three (3) most southern counties of the State. In addition to the Mississippi Sound, this would include St. Louis Bay, Biloxi Bay, and Pascagoula Bay. However, the rivers and bayous leading into these bays, including but not limited to Jourdan River, Wolf River, Bernard Bayou, Tchoutacabouffa River, Pascagoula River and Escapatawpa [sic] are not within the authorized area. In determining where the river ends and the bay begins, an imaginary line shall be drawn from the foremost land mass at the intersection of the river and bay, straight across the river to the foremost land mass of the intersection on the other side. Id. The site plan approved by the Commission proposed to divert waters from the Bay of St. Louis northward through to man-made channels 45 to 65 feet wide, running a quarter of a mile inland to an artificial cove carved out of dry land in Harrison County. Id. at 893 (emphasis added). We found that the proposed artificial inlets were no different than those naturally occurring inlets emptying into the bay. Id. Thus, the Court further found that Regulation No. 2's limitation of permissible gaming sites to the Mississippi Sound, St. Louis Bay, Pascagoula Bay and the Biloxi Bay was a reasonable interpretation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-1(a) and (b) (1994), which exempt from penalty those gambling activities that take place on cruise vessels in waters which lie adjacent to the State of Mississippi south of the three (3) most southern counties in the State of Mississippi, as well as on the Mississippi River. Id. and § 97-33-1(a) (emphasis added). In so finding, we stated, Here, the proposed site approved by the Commission is clearly not within any of these areas. Moreover, if anything is clear in the statute, an approved site must be on water. The site here in question is not on water. It is on land which the applicants propose to dredge. Casino Operators, 654 So. 2d at 895. It is from this context that the citizens groups derive their argument that we have applied a de minimis rule to the statutory definitions of where a gaming vessel may be located, stating that [a] site which is 20% on land is not 'on water' and MCOA says that dredging cannot be used to fix it. Nothing in the applicable statutes, in Casino Operators, or any of this Court's other decisions, however, can be properly construed as so requiring. II. WHETHER THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING COMMISSION ERRED IN DECIDING THAT PINE HILLS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP COULD LAWFULLY LOCATE A CASINO IN WATERS LESS THAN SIX FEET DEEP IN THEIR NATURAL STATE. ¶19. Next, the citizens groups contend that the Commission's site approval was faulty because waters in their natural, unimproved condition must be capable of accommodating a cruise vessel with a six foot draft. In support of their argument, the citizens groups rely on the requirements set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 27109-1(2) (1990) and Miss. Code Ann. § 97-33-7(4)(a) and (b) (1994). Section 27-109-1(2) provides the definitions upon which the assignment of error is premised: For purposes of this chapter, the term cruise vessel shall mean a vessel which complies with all U.S. Coast Guard regulations, having a minimum overall length of one hundred fifty (150) feet and a minimum draft of six (6) feet and which is certified to carry at least two hundred (200) passengers; and the term vessel shall mean a vessel having a minimum overall length of one hundred fifty (150) feet. The term vessel shall also mean a cruise vessel as referred to in Section 27-109-11. For the purposes of a vessel as that term is defined in this section, navigable waters means any rivers, creeks, bayous or other bodies of water within any county in this state bordering on the Mississippi River that are used or susceptible of being used as an artery of commerce and which either in their natural or improved condition are used or suitable for use as an artery of commerce or are used for the docking or mooring of a vessel, notwithstanding interruptions between the navigable parts of such rivers, creeks, bayous or other bodies of water by falls, shallows, or rapids compelling land carriage. ¶20. Providing additional definition to those waters in the Gulf and along the Mississippi River in which gaming vessels may be located, § 97-33-7(4)(a) and (b)(2) state: (4) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, it shall not be unlawful to operate any equipment or device described in subsection (1) of this section or any gaming, gambling or similar device or devices by whatever name called while: (a) On a cruise vessel as defined in Section 27-109-1 whenever such vessel is in the waters within the State of Mississippi, which lie adjacent to the State of Mississippi south of the three (3) most southern counties in the State of Mississippi, and in which the registered voters of the county in which the port is located have not voted to prohibit such betting, gaming or wagering on cruise vessels as provided in Section 19-3-79; (b) On a vessel as defined in Section 27-109-1 whenever such vessel is on the Mississippi River or navigable waters within any county bordering on the Mississippi River, and in which the registered voters of the county in which the port is located have not voted to prohibit such betting, gaming or wagering on vessels as provided in Section 19-3-79; . . . It is upon § 27-109-1(2), however, which the community groups primarily appear to rely in asserting that coastal waters, in their natural state, must be capable of supporting a vessel with a six-foot draft. As Pine Hills points out, however, the six-foot draft requirement falls within that section of the code provision which defines vessel, not in the clause defining navigable waters. While the circuit court noted in its opinion that the phrase defining navigable waters as being in their natural or improved condition implied that dredging was permissible, the citizens groups turn to the distinction made in §§ 97-33-7(4)(a) and (b) between waters south of the three most southern counties and navigable waters on the Mississippi River to refute that premise, arguing, without any authority, that the modifier navigable broadens the meaning of waters to include those which have been improved, and thus [i]t follows that the waters in their natural, unimproved condition must be capable of accommodating a cruise vessel with a six foot draft. To the contrary, the absence of the modifier navigable could just as well be construed as enlarging the scope of waters to embrace any waters, regardless of whether they are navigable. We further note that in Marine Resources' Coastal Program, both the General Use G designation assigned to the site and the Water Dependent Industry I designation to which it was changed pursuant to Pine Hills' request allow for reasonable dredging and filling of sites to accommodate the uses permitted within each designation. This, in and of itself, would tend to negate the groups' contention that the waters must be in their natural state or that dredging is impermissible. ¶21. The citizens groups' argument also ignores the fact that the apparent ambiguities in §§ 97-33-7(4)(a) and (b) have been addressed by this Court as well as by the Gaming Commission. In Casino Operators, where we found that the Commission had exceeded its authority by approving Pine Hills' earlier proposal to construct an artificial inlet north of the Bay of St. Louis upon which to float a gaming vessel, we addressed the failure of § 97-33-1(a) to define specifically waters within the State of Mississippi, which lie adjacent to the State of Mississippi south of the three (3) most southern counties. There, we noted that unlike the provisions regarding gaming on the Mississippi River, the Gulf Coast gaming provision does not expressly state that gaming is allowed on all 'navigable waters' within the counties which border on the Gulf of Mexico. Casino Operators, 654 So. 2d at 894. The Gaming Commission's Regulation No. 2, providing further definition to the statutory language, thus was found to be a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Id. at 894-95. The deciding factor is not the depth of the waters in their unimproved state as the citizens groups would argue; rather it is where the waters are located.(3) III. WHETHER NEITHER UNTESTED ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS ON OTHER CASINO SITES OR CLAIMS OF A LANDOWNER'S RIGHT TO CONDUCT DOCKSIDE GAMING SUPPORT MGC'S ACTION ¶22. In passing, and again relying on our decision in Casino Operators, the citizens groups urge this Court to disregard that part of the record which includes administrative orders regarding site modifications made by other casinos since '[n]one of the orders granting these licenses were appealed and they are not presently before us.' Casino Operators, 654 So. 2d at 895. Specifically, they appear to object to documents which form the basis of footnote 10 of Pine Hills' brief. In that footnote, Pine Hills prepared a chart indicating the site improvement dredging of casino sites as reflected in public notices issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, that footnote expressly states: We do not cite these as judicially binding precedents but as evidence of a widespread custom and practice which suggests the reading Appellants would give the statutes would create substantial design and engineering difficulties without countervailing enhancement in legality or the public benefit. For the moment, we ask the Court to consider that any inadequacy of the Record on this point is a function of the fact that no one had any idea Appellants would appear and press the present points until the Record was closed. ¶23. They further suggest that should Pine Hills argue that it has a right to conduct a gaming operation if it meets the criteria for eligibility, it is wrong because there is no such right. As they assert, Miss Code Ann. § 75-76-3(5) explicitly does not grant anyone a vested right to gaming on their property. Casino Magic Corp. v. Ladner, 666 So. 2d 452, 458 (Miss. 1995). Pine Hills, however, makes no such argument. That notwithstanding, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-7 provides the Commission with the authority to determine the locations of casinos which wish to build in the Gulf Coast area. Casino Operators, 654 So. 2d at 894. In considering Pine Hills' site application, which the citizens groups now appeal, the Gaming Commission was merely acting pursuant to its statutory mandate.