Opinion ID: 1810507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Scope of Review on Remand.

Text: 4. Although this appeal is from a summary judgment and there has been no trial on the merits, most of the significant issues which will govern the ultimate outcome of this litigation have been briefed and argued in this court. It has now been four and one-half years since MPL applied for a certificate of site compatibility. Accordingly, it is essential that there be an expedited hearing in the trial court on the narrow issues which remain. The trial court has already ruled that if the designation of the Fine Lakes site by EQC is held to be invalid, the proceedings must be remanded to the agency for further action since the court has no jurisdiction to select an alternative site. We concur in that view and affirm the trial court's decision in that regard. Minn.Stat. § 116C.65 (1978) specifies the procedure for taking appeals to the district court from orders entered by the EQC. Chapter 439 of the Laws of 1977 adds the following language omitted in the prior statute: The scope of judicial review shall be as prescribed in § 15.024 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The parties have now had adequate opportunity in the trial court and in this court to litigate constitutional and statutory issues with respect to siting procedures. We therefore are of the opinion that upon remand the only issue remaining is whether or not the decision of the EQC, designating Fine Lakes as its choice for the construction of the power plant contemplated by MPL, is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record, or is arbitrary or capricious. The scope of review of an agency decision by the trial court has been fully discussed in two recent decisions, Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808 (Minn.1977) and No Power Line, Inc. v. MEQC, 262 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.1977). However, as we view this record two issues emerge which require special consideration by the trial court. One is the necessity for relocating residents in the Fine Lakes area, and the other is the problem of protecting two thirty-six inch gas pipelines which cross that site. As we have noted, the hearing officer found that displacement of individuals from their residences is clearly the most significant adverse effect of the Floodwood/Fine Lakes site and makes this decision very difficult. It appears that fourteen permanent residents will be affected. Seventeen of the private landowners, owning sixty-three percent of the area, were engaged in agriculture. There was evidence that a substantial number of residents in Brookston would welcome the location of the power plant at that site, whereas the sentiment of those living in Fine Lakes generally opposed construction in their community. By amendment in 1977 of Minn.Stat. § 116C.53, subd. 1 (1978), the legislature has admonished the EQC to choose locations that minimize adverse human and environmental impact while insuring continuing electric power system reliability and integrity and insuring that electric energy needs are met and fulfilled in an orderly and timely fashion. Neither the legislature, the courts, nor the environmental agencies are insensitive to the human problems of dislocating families. The task of balancing the impact on the environment with the impact on those who may be dislocated is a difficult and delicate one. Nevertheless the legislature has adopted a policy that leans strongly to the preservation of undeveloped areas which remain in a state of nature. Minn.Stat. § 116B.09, subd. 2 (1978) provides as follows: In any such administrative, licensing, or other similar proceedings, the agency shall consider the alleged impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state and no conduct shall be authorized or approved which does, or is likely to have such effect so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct. (Emphasis added.) By definition, the word paramount as used in the phrase the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources means superior to all others. [5] This legislative policy was construed and applied in PEER v. MEQC, 266 N.W.2d 858, 869 (Minn.1978). There we rejected the argument that one power line site was preferable to another because it would require the condemnation of fewer homes, and stated that condemnation of a number of homes does not, without more, overcome the law's preference for containment of powerlines as expressed in the policy of nonproliferation. Persons who lose their homes can be fully compensated in damages. The destruction of protectible environmental resources, however, is non-compensable and injurious to all present and future residents of Minnesota. In PEER, 266 N.W.2d at 868, we cited Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 827 (Minn.1977) and stated that we there recognized the state's strongly held commitment    `to protecting the air, water, wildlife, and forests from further impairment and encroachment.' With respect to the impact on the Great Lakes gas pipeline by the designation of the Fine Lakes site, the record is unclear. The hearing officer mentioned potential difficulties if the Floodwood site is selected indicating it might be necessary to move or re-enforce the pipeline which crosses that site. However, he did not refer to a similar problem at Fine Lakes. Great Lakes and MPL argue that the two thirty-six inch gas pipelines would be put in serious jeopardy by the construction of the proposed power plant at the Fine Lakes site. The line is located on swampy, spongy soil similar to muskeg and held in place by weights. The dumping of fly ash over the pipelines, it is argued, might well cause a break in the line. It was estimated that the cost of relocation could range from five to fifteen million dollars. The question of whether Great Lakes would be entitled to damages under such circumstances was not addressed. MPL raises the further question of conflicting jurisdiction with federal regulations governing the placement, maintenance, and licensing of interstate pipelines of this size. These are matters of legitimate concern to MPL and Great Lakes, and those utilities are entitled to present any further arguments which may assist the court in assessing the validity of their claims. Reversed and remanded.