Opinion ID: 888250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court err in upholding the process the BCD used in determining the Mitchell Slough's status under the 310 Law?

Text: ¶ 20 The BRPA argues that the process the BCD used in rendering its 310 Law determination regarding the Mitchell was inadequate, especially because constitutional rights involving natural resources were implicated in the matter. The BCD responds that it was not required to comply with any particular process or procedure, such as a MAPA contested case proceeding, and that it complied with constitutional mandates by affording the public, including the BRPA, a reasonable opportunity to participate prior to making its decision. ¶ 21 Article II, Section 8, of the Montana Constitution provides that [t]he public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law. Section 2-3-101, MCA, referencing the mandate of Article II, section 8, provides that citizens are to be afforded reasonable opportunity to participate. . . . Section 2-3-111(1), MCA, provides that [p]rocedures for assisting public participation must include a method of affording interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in written form, prior to making a final decision that is of significant interest to the public. The essential elements of public participation are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Section 2-3-103(1)(a), MCA. ¶ 22 The BRPA does not argue that it was provided inadequate notice in this matter. Rather, the BRPA argues that after the BCD began an informal information-gathering process, it switched to an adversarial hearing and announced that MAPA procedures would be used and would require the BRPA to hire an attorney. After this announcement was made, the BRPA argues, the BCD failed to employ MAPA procedures because [d]iscovery, production of documents or entry upon land wasn't allowed and the parties could not subpoena witnesses. The BCD also restricted the BRPA's ability to cross-examine one of Landowners' experts, Barry Dutton, who submitted a report but did not appear. Thus, the BRPA argues that the BCD contradicted its own rules by employing MAPA-like procedures in some ways, but not others. ¶ 23 The BCD responds that the proceeding was a unique, but nonetheless reasonable, method to gather information to make its declaratory ruling. BCD argues that no particular procedure was required, as in a MAPA contested case proceeding, because the proceeding was intended for the sole purpose of gathering information for its decision. According to the BCD, it undertook a non-contested case declaratory ruling as authorized by this Court in BRPA I which strictly adhered to the mandate of Article II, Section 8 by providing a reasonable opportunity to participate. The BCD explains that it proceeded under Montana's public participation statutes and its own rules in conducting a public hearing. BCD Rule 6(2) provides that [i]f questions arise, about the accuracy of the perennial stream designation of these maps, the district may use water rights records, stream flow and hydrologice [sic] data and interviews with area residents and professionals. The district may also conduct a public hearing to gather information. Under BCD Rule 18(4), the BCD may hold a public hearing when the supervisor determines a proposed project to be controversial, [1] or where additional information is desired prior to final action by the supervisors. Acknowledging that the process took on certain attributes of a MAPA proceeding, the BCD nonetheless argues that nothing more was required, and it was free to formulate a process that fit the demands of the task before it. ¶ 24 The BCD initiated the declaratory ruling process by holding an open public meeting. Individuals were allowed to provide oral and written statements, and interested persons were granted an additional seven days to submit further information. The BCD then suspended its decisionmaking process when the BRPA filed a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the BCD's authority, the litigation which led to our decision in BRPA I. Following that decision, the BCD allowed another sixty days for the submission of additional written information, and provided that any party adverse to someone presenting information would be afforded an opportunity for cross-examination. A cross-examination hearing was thereafter conducted. During the process, the BCD received 1,528 pages of information, in addition to oral statements. The Board's members each spent approximately 550 hours discussing and reviewing the information prior to issuing a declaratory ruling. ¶ 25 The BCD correctly notes that it was not required to hold a contested case proceeding under MAPA, because it is exempted from MAPA as a political subdivision of the State. See § 2-4-102(2)(b), MCA. As we have held, conservation districts can initiate 310 Law determinations through the use of non-MAPA declaratory rulings. BRPA I, ¶ 22. We see no reason why the BCD could not use certain procedures similar to those in a MAPA contested case proceeding, if fairly employed, without being obligated to implement all of MAPA's requirements, as the BRPA essentially contends. The BCD did not have the ability to subpoena witnesses, but it provided an opportunity to cross-examine presenters. Although the BRPA argues it was unable to cross-examine every witness it desired, this limitation cannot be faulted within the more informal declaratory process used here and, although the BCD's decision referenced the withdrawn Dutton Report without granting an opportunity for cross-examination of the author, we agree with the District Court that any error this may have constituted was harmless, given the cumulative nature of other evidence. ¶ 26 The BCD did appear to stutter-step in communicating its intentions about how it would conduct the statutory process we characterized in BRPA I as offering no clear guidance. BRPA I, ¶ 16. However, in a case which was both complicated and controversial, the BCD, four members of which are locally elected, BRPA I, ¶ 15, n. 1, complied with its own rules, gave notice and provided an extended opportunity to submit information, permitting the BRPA and other interested persons to submit voluminous materials, offer oral opinions and statements, make objections and provide written arguments prior to the rendering of a final decision. James Haynes, now a district court judge, was appointed Hearing Facilitator by the BCD and did a commendable job presiding over the hearings. We conclude that the BCD's method of affording public participation, § 2-3-111(1), MCA, was fundamentally fair and provided a reasonable opportunity for citizen participation as required by Article II, Section 8 of the Montana Constitution, and we affirm the District Court in upholding the process.