Opinion ID: 1057239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Environmental Court's Permit Conditions

Text: ¶ 51. We next turn to the conditions imposed on the amended permit by the Environmental Court. The conditions at issue consist of two added requirements: (1) that a temperature sensor be installed at the fish conduit to monitor and record data when the fish conduit is in operation, during both the summer and winter periods; and (2) that during the period from June 16 through July 7 the discharge be managed so that it results in an actual measured temperature at the fishway and fish conduit sensors not to exceed 76.7° F. CRWC, Entergy, and ANR all argue that the Environmental Court exceeded its authority in attaching these conditions. Entergy also argues that the conditions were not adequately supported by the evidence. We agree that the imposition of conditions was impermissible here. Because we conclude that the Environmental Court failed to adequately support the conditions it imposed, we do not address the scope of authority the court generally has in fashioning NPDES permit conditions. ¶ 52. Much of the arguments by all three parties involve the appropriate standard of review for the Environmental Court in reviewing ANR decisions. In their cross-appeals, both Entergy and ANR argue that the Environmental Court lacks the authority to impose permit conditions like the ones at issue here. They both contend that even under a de novo hearing standard of review the Environmental Court should have given proper deference to ANR's initial determinations. ANR recognizes the ability of the Environmental Court to append conditions to permits, but contends that in the highly technical permit application at issue here, the Environmental Court does not have the institutional expertise and resources to craft detailed and technical conditions to address matters like effluent limits and other issues involved in CWA permit applications. Finally, Entergy contends that even if the Environmental Court had the authority to impose conditions, the conditions it imposed here were not supported by the record. ¶ 53. The Environmental Court is necessarily a specialized court with particular expertise in environmental law. See Sec'y, Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. Handy Family Enters., 163 Vt. 476, 482, 660 A.2d 309, 313 (1995) (noting that in putting in place specialized environmental court, [t]he Legislature expected that the environmental judge would develop expertise in environmental enforcement and ensure consistent interpretations of the law). The Legislature has set out the appropriate standard of review to be employed by the Environmental Court reviewing actions of ANR in proceedings outside of Act 250: The environmental court, applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from, shall hold a de novo hearing on those issues which have been appealed. 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h). The rules promulgated for the Environmental Court also lay out the appropriate standard of review: In an appeal by trial de novo, all questions of law or fact as to which review is available shall be tried to the court, which shall apply the substantive standards that were applicable before the tribunal appealed from.