Opinion ID: 865887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the commission considered the

Text: HARDSHIP THAT THE BILBERRY LANDFILL WILL CAUSE HINDS COUNTY. ¶20. Hinds County argues that the Commission failed to consider the hardship that the proposed landfill will cause Hinds County. To support this contention, Hinds County argues the following: (1) that the landfill will increase maintenance costs for North County Line Road; (2) that the landfill conflicts with Hinds County’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for residential development in the area; and (3) that the landfill will cause danger and hardship to the health and well-being of Hinds County residents living near the site. 10 ¶21. Hinds County asserts that the Commission has a duty to consider hardship on surrounding areas when approving an amended waste-management plan. In support of this contention, Hinds County argues that considering hardship is part of the Commission’s “overall statewide responsibility in regulating solid waste landfills in Mississippi . . . .” Hinds County also argues that the notice provision in Mississippi Code Section 17-17227(5)(a) (Rev. 2003), which requires a county seeking to amend its waste-management plan to notify adjacent counties, implies that hardship on the adjacent counties should be considered. ¶22. Mississippi Code Section 17-17-229 (Rev. 2003) lists criteria that must be considered by the Permit Board when determining the location and permitting of a landfill. These factors include: (a) Hydrological and geological factors, such as floodplains, depth to water table, soil composition, and permeability, cavernous bedrock, seismic activity, and slope; (b) Natural resources factors, such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, proximity to parks, forests, wilderness areas and historical sites, and air quality; (c) Land use factors, such as local land use, whether residential, industrial, commercial, recreational, agricultural, proximity to public water supplies, and proximity to incompatible structures such as schools, churches and airports; (d) Transportation factors, such as proximity to waste generators and to population, route safety and method of transportation; and (e) Aesthetic factors, such as the visibility, appearance and noise level of the facility. Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-229(2) (Rev. 2003). ¶23. These criteria encompass Hinds County’s hardship concerns. Because Madison County’s amended waste-management plan has not yet reached the Permit Board phase, many of these factors have not been considered in-depth. Although the Commission did 11 consider some of Hinds County’s concerns, the Commission is not required by statute to consider these factors. See id. § 17-17-225. In fact, the Commission suggested to the Permit Board that Bilberry be required to clean litter off the adjacent road and that the landfill be set back from the road, evidencing that the Commission did consider possible hardship to Hinds County. ¶24. The MDEQ’s own regulations mirror the statutory requirement that the Permit Board consider these factors. The regulations require the Permit Board to consider factors such as: public water supply, air quality, location of residential areas, property line setbacks, aesthetics and visibility, transportation, and noise. Thus, as the Commission found, Hinds County’s hardship concerns are better suited for review before the Permit Board. See Titan Tire of Natchez, 891 So. 2d at 200 (citing Weems, 653 So. 2d at 273) (This Court gives great deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.). This issue is without merit. III. WHETHER MADISON COUNTY VIOLATED ITS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. ¶25. Mississippi Code Section 17-17-227(5)(a) (Rev. 2003) requires the Board of Supervisors of a county seeking to amend its waste-management plan to provide public notice and at least one public hearing concerning the plan. Because the Commission had concerns about Madison County’s first issuance of notice, the Commission ordered Madison County to conduct another hearing. The hearing was conducted in November 2003, and the Board of Supervisors approved the plan again. Prior to the second public hearing, in January 2003, Madison County entered into a host-fee agreement with Bilberry. Hinds County 12 argues that, because of the host-fee agreement, Madison County contractually obligated itself to amend its waste-management plan prior to the end of the public comment phase of the amendment process and, therefore, violated its statutory obligation under Section 17-17227(5)(a). ¶26. In an affidavit submitted to the Commission, Madison County Supervisor Karl Banks testified that “[t]he Agreement did not bind the Board to vote to amend the Plan.” Supervisor Banks also stated that “[t]he Board has never considered itself bound to amend the Plan to include the Bilberry Property until it has fully considered the issues.” ¶27. Madison County Supervisor Timothy Johnson also addressed the host-fee agreement in his affidavit, stating that: The opponents to the Board’s action in amending the Plan to the Bilberry Property have asserted that the Host Fee Agreement prevented the Board from properly evaluating and considering the position of the opponents to the Amendment. I do not agree. The newly elected Board of Supervisors for Madison County considered and debated the Amendment to the Plan at its April 16, 2004 meeting. The Board did not consider that it was required to approve the Amendment to add the Bilberry Property because of the Host Fee Agreement. As elected representatives of the people, the Board was not bound to vote to amend the plan. (Emphasis added.) ¶28. The Commission requested that the Board vote on the plan again when new members of the Board were elected in January 2004. At this time, the Board voted three-to-two to amend the plan. This vote was subsequent to the host-fee agreement and was the only time the plan was not unanimously approved by the Board. The dissenting votes indicate that the Board members did not feel obligated to approve the plan. 13 ¶29. The Commission considered the issue of whether the amendment process was prejudiced by the host-fee agreement and found that “Madison County’s review of the proposed amendment was consistent with state law and regulations of this Commission.” The Commission noted that Madison County had received public comment in November 1998, February 1999, March 1999, October 2002, and November 2003. Madison County had entered into the host-fee agreement in January 2003. The Commission also considered Supervisor Johnson’s testimony that he did not feel obligated to approve the plan in light of the host-fee agreement. ¶30. The Commission was presented with conflicting evidence regarding the host-fee agreement and found that the agreement did not prejudice the Board’s vote. Considering the Board members’ testimony, the dissenting votes in the final vote by the Board, and the public hearings held before the host-fee agreement, we find that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.6 Miss. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Chickasaw County, 621 So. 2d 1211, 1215 (Miss. 1993). Accordingly, we find that this issue is without merit.