Opinion ID: 1901409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Feasible alternatives to the activity

Text: ¶ 19. The Sierra Club argues that the Commission disregarded a non-structural alternative to the project, which includes the acquisition of flowage easements in combination with traditional excavation of critical reaches. This alternative, it argues, was: recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in a study prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in a study on re-forestation in the Delta, the president of the Delta Land Trust Logan Russell, the Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, and by members of the public. ¶ 20. The Commission analyzed this factor in its order as follows: The Corps evaluated the ... purchase of flowage easements and determined that not only was this alternative cost prohibitive, but also the option would not accomplish the purpose of the project. The record shows that the Corps estimated that this alternative would cost approximately $120 million in contrast to about $64 million for the Project. However, at the March 26, 1998, presentation of the project, Seyfarth conceded that the Corps's cost estimate of flowage easements was based on protection for a twenty-five year flood, despite the fact that the Project is only intended to protect for a one to five-year flood. We don't get a whole lot into cost-benefit ratios, that sort of thing in our regulations. I do know there was some concern that the cost that the Corps determined were based on a 25-year event where this project is a five-year event. ¶ 21. The Corps's cost estimate for the purchase of flowage easements to alleviate floods occurring at one to five year frequencies involve almost 20,000 acres of Class I and II land, and approximately 115,000 acres of Class II and IV land. [1] This is 50,000 acres less than the Corps's estimate based on a twenty-five year flood. The Sierra Club further contends that the Corps used erroneous land values, and that evidence was presented to the Commission that the true cost of purchasing flowage easements to protect against one to five year events would be approximately $52.5 million. [2] ¶ 22. The Project is estimated to cost $64 million to complete, and is expected to have a life expectancy of 25 years. Seyfarth stated to the Commission that, after the Project is completed, further dredging will be required in the future to maintain it. He could not estimate when this future dredging will be required, nor how much it will cost. Therefore, the long-term cost of the Project is indeterminate. These are serious discrepancies in the estimated costs of each alternative. It is unclear to us how any genuine decision about the merits of each alternative can be reasoned without reconciling or at least analyzing the vastly contradictory information before the Commission. ¶ 23. The Corps also argues that the purchase of flowage easements would not be effective due to continued aggradation of the riverbed. In other words, as the river continues to silt in, it becomes shallower and will require the purchase of additional easements. This was contradicted by a study from the University of Alabama, which stated as follows: This is not correct. Channels are currently aggrading because of past construction and erosion from agricultural land. If there is no new construction and channels are protected from siltation by non-structural buffer zones [riparian vegetation], aggradation will cease and the stream will regain its natural equilibrium. In contrast, aggradation will continue and possibly increase if the structural alternative is constructed... as full flood protection would only occur immediately after construction, gradually decreasing over project life. ¶ 24. This opinion is consistent with a report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It found that flood damages in the drainage basin are the result of agricultural encroachment onto the lowest and poorest drained lands in the project area. Without this encroachment into the base floodplain, there would be few if any damages from seasonal floods. Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report at 24 (1996). The Sierra Club argues that initial benefits from the Project will encourage increased use of the benefitted lands, resulting in further erosion, aggradation, and dredging. ¶ 25. The Corps acknowledges in its Environmental Impact Statement that much of this land should have never been cleared in the first place. Evidence was presented (cross sections of the river beds from then and now) that the depth of the channels, bank width, bank height, etc. are substantially the same as they were in the 1940's. Also, the proliferation of the mussel colonies indicate an absence of suspended sediments in the water because mussels are particularly sensitive to them. ¶ 26. In its order, the Commission neglected to explain its reasons for adopting the conclusions of the Corps that Project would perform as designed and that the non-structural alternative would be prohibitively expensive and would not work. Though the information presented on these issues was conflicting, the Commission's order set forth neither the reasons nor the facts on which its decision to adopt the Corp's findings was based. The only reasoning or facts that appear in the order of the Commission in evaluating the non-structural alternative were the conclusory statements that the Corps evaluated the alternative, and that the Commission found that the selected alternative will avoid and minimize, within feasible limits considering the project purpose, and will mitigate the impact of this project on water quality. ¶ 27. The Corps says that the non-structural alternative is too expensive and will not work. The Sierra Club and other agencies and organizations contend that the alternative will work and is not more expensive than the Project. In its order, the Commission failed to address the competing contentions of the parties and resolve their factual disputes. We were faced with a similarly deficient order in McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312 (Miss.1992). Our concern of the moment is that the Board has given us nothing suggesting it ever thought of these points, much less decided them. Id. at 324. Of course, the policies compete, and unreasoned preference of one by definition is arbitrary ... We need to know something of the costs and risks associated with each of these conflicting interests before we can on judicial review intelligently consider whether the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously or whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 323. ¶ 28. In McGowan, we vacated the orders of the State Oil and Gas Board for failing to make adequate findings of fact and for failing to explain how it evaluated the competing interests before it. Id. We clearly explained the law of this state as follows: If an agency does not disclose the reason upon which its decision is based, the courts will be usurped of their power of review over questions of law ... Among those questions of law are whether board action is arbitrary and capricious and whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Illinois Central Railroad Co v. Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete, 243 Miss. 72, 137 So.2d 542, 545-46 (1962). 604 So.2d at 324. We further stated that [i]t is a logical and legal prerequisite to intelligent judicial review ... that the Board favor us with more than mere conclusory findings on each of these issues, together with a summary of the grounds for these findings. Id. ¶ 29. As in McGowan, the order before us is inadequate for review because the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality has not articulated the reasoning upon which its decision is based. Under the factor feasible alternatives to the activity, the Commission's only rationale was the following: The Corps evaluated the ... purchase of flowage easements and determined that not only was this alternative cost prohibitive, but also the option would not accomplish the purpose of the project. This sort of conclusory statement is exactly what we set out to avoid in McGowan. This Court has no way to understand the specifics and reasoning for the Commission to find the alternative cost prohibitive. ¶ 30. Due to the lack of findings and explanation in the order, we are unable to determine whether the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence or was arbitrary or capricious.