Opinion ID: 865887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the commission had a statutory duty

Text: TO DETERMINE MADISON COUNTY’S NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL LANDFILL; AND IF SO, WHETHER THE COMMISSION IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS DUTY TO MADISON COUNTY. ¶12. The Commission’s statutory responsibilities with regard to approving a county’s waste-management plan are listed in Mississippi Code Sections 17-17-225 to 17-17-229 (Rev. 2003). Section 17-17-225 lists criteria that the Commission must consider when evaluating a waste-management plan. Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-225 (Rev. 2003). One of these criteria is “[t]he adequacy of plans and implementation schedules for providing needed nonhazardous solid waste management capacity for the twenty-year period.” Id. § 17-17225(d) (emphasis added). ¶13. Hinds County argues that, under Section 17-17-225(d), the Commission has a statutory duty to determine whether Madison County needed another landfill and that it 6 improperly delegated its duty to Madison County. To support its claim, Hinds County cites the following paragraph of the Commission’s order: The Commission finds that historically it has left decisions on the need for a new landfill to the local government in planning matters and, consistent with its past decisions, now chooses to rely on Madison County in this matter. Additionally, the Commission finds that state law requires the permit applicant to provide a demonstration of need document as part of the permitting process before the Permit Board pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-229 (Rev. 2003). The Commission further finds that Madison County considered the need for the North County Line Landfill when it decided to approve the amendment to the Plan by the Board. Hinds County also argues that evidence in the record demonstrates that Madison County does not need an additional landfill, including the facts that Madison County already has two existing landfills and that Madison County’s finding of need was erroneously based on the conclusion that it needed competition among the landfills. ¶14. Under the statutes governing the waste-management plan amendment process at the time that the Commission approved Madison County’s plan, we find that Madison County and the Permit Board are to make determinations of need, not the Commission. While Section 17-17-225 mentions need, it simply requires the Commission to determine the “adequacy” of the plan in “providing needed nonhazardous solid waste management capacity for the twenty-year period.” Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-225(d) (Rev. 2003). The statute does not require an independent finding of need by the Commission, but rather requires the Commission to determine whether the proposed plan adequately meets the needs demonstrated by the county. 7 ¶15. The code sections governing approval of an amended waste-management plan place the responsibility of demonstrating need in the hands of the county.4 Id. § 17-17-229(1). Under Section 17-17-229(1), Madison County is required to demonstrate need for the proposed landfill to the MDEQ Permit Board.5 This step in the approval process has not happened in today’s case because Hinds County appealed the Commission’s approval of 4 See generally Thomas v. Bd. of Supervisors of Panola County, 45 So. 3d 1173, 1181 (Miss. 2010) (Zoning applicants must demonstrate need in order to reclassify property.); Haas Trucking, Inc. v. Hancock County Solid Waste Auth., 29 So. 3d 853, 854 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (Applicants to develop rubbish site required to demonstrate need in initial application to county solid waste authority.). 5 Section 17-17-229 includes the following language which requires counties to demonstrate need to the Permit Board: Each permit application for a commercial nonhazardous solid waste management facility shall contain a demonstration of need which shall include the following: (a) Verification that the facility for which the permit is sought meets needs identified in the approved local nonhazardous solid waste management plan which shall take into account the quantities of municipal solid waste generated and the design capacities of existing facilities; (b) Certification that the facility for which the permit is sought complies with local land use and zoning requirements, if any; (c) Demonstration, to the extent possible, that the host jurisdiction and the jurisdiction generating the solid waste destined for the applicant’s facility are actively involved in, and have a strategy for, meeting the statewide waste reduction goal; (d) Certification that the proposed service area of the facility is consistent with an approved local nonhazardous solid waste management plan; and (e) The extent to which the proposed facility is needed to replace other facilities. Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-229(1) (Rev. 2003) (emphasis added). 8 Madison County’s amended waste-management plan, which is one step prior to the application to the Permit Board. ¶16. The MDEQ’s Evaluation Criteria for Local Solid Waste Management Plans mirror these statutory requirements. The MDEQ’s criteria require that an amended wastemanagement plan meet the twenty-year needs of the area and states: “Each plan must demonstrate that the projections of solid waste generated over the planning period are adequate to meet the needs of the area.” (Emphasis added.) The MDEQ’s criteria, along with the statutes governing the amendment process, put the responsibility of demonstrating need in the hands of the county and simply require the Commission to determine whether the proposed plan will adequately meet the needs demonstrated by the county. ¶17. This Court has held that when “an agency interprets a statute that it is responsible for administering, we must defer to the agency’s interpretation so long as the interpretation is reasonable.” Titan Tire of Natchez, Inc. v. Miss. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 891 So. 2d 195, 200 (Miss. 2004) (citations omitted). This Court also “give[s] great deference to the administrative agency in interpreting its own regulations.” Id. at 202 (citing Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Weems, 653 So. 2d 266, 273 (Miss. 1995)); see also Sierra Club v. Miss. Envtl. Quality Permit Bd., 943 So. 2d 673, 679-80 (Miss. 2006). The Commission was essentially interpreting the governing statutes and its own regulations when stating that “it has left decisions on the need for a new landfill to the local government in planning matters and, consistent with its past decisions, now chooses to rely on Madison County in this matter.” Based on the language of Sections 17-17-225 and 17-17-229 and the MDEQ’s criteria, we find that the Commission’s interpretation was reasonable. 9 ¶18. Moreover, at the hearing before the Commission, Madison County provided ample evidence demonstrating its need for an additional landfill. This evidence included: (1) testimony that the existing landfills will not meet the twenty-year need for the area; (2) the fact that other landfills in the area had closed; (3) that the population in the area was growing at twenty percent more than earlier growth estimates; and (4) that competition among landfills was needed to ensure fair pricing. Based on this evidence, the Commission found that Madison County’s “review of the proposed amendment was consistent with state law and the regulations of this Commission.” Thus, we find that the Commission met its statutory duty under Section 17-17-225. ¶19. The Commission does not have an independent statutory duty to determine need for an additional landfill, but instead, it must determine whether an amended plan adequately meets the waste-disposal needs demonstrated by the county. Because the Commission does not have a duty to determine need, it cannot improperly delegate the duty. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.