Court Opinion

ID: 9733571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:10:47.167044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:42.437568
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
I.
By a decision dated June 10, 1991, the United States Supreme Court refused to consider permitting states of the union to close their borders to out-of-state hazardous wastes. The United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Alabama officials seeking to ban hazardous wastes from certain states. Natl. Solid Wastes, et al. v. Alabama Dept, of Envtl. Mgmt., et al, 910 F.2d 713 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2800, 115 *515L.Ed.2d 973 (1991).
In 1989, Alabama enacted a law which prevented private companies in the State of Alabama from accepting hazardous waste from sites in states with no waste facilities. The United States Supreme Court upheld a ruling of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which had declared the Alabama law unconstitutional, the Eleventh Circuit ruling that it interfered with interstate commerce and it is pre-empted by environmental laws.
South Dakota’s pertinent statute is SDCL 34A-6-1.1 which provides:
The Legislature finds that other states have imposed stringent standards for the proper collection and disposal of solid waste and that without such standards and enforcement of them, South Dakota could be burdened with the importation and disposal in the state of large amounts of solid waste from other states by persons and firms who may not have the capability to properly dispose of the waste or who wish to avoid the costs and requirements for proper, effective and safe disposal of such waste in the state of origin.
The Legislature finds that the disposal of large quantities of solid waste in this state will, in fact, impose additional burdens on the citizens of this state. Experience has shown that under the system of laws currently governing waste disposal in this country, this liability can be significant. For these and other reasons, the Legislature finds that it is reasonable and necessary to require that any person intending to dispose of waste in this state comply with the provisions of §§ 34A-6-1.2 to 34A-6-1.38, inclusive. The Legislature further finds that to ensure a minimum safe level of solid waste regulation nationally, the United States environmental protection agency is promulgating a comprehensive set of rules to govern the disposal of solid waste and that South Dakota must be prepared to comply with those rules.
These statutes speak to the importation of hazardous waste and, obviously, any judge in this state must interpret a legislative intent from these statutes walking a legal tight wire: keep within the law and yet preserve the beauty and safety of the land bequeathed to us by God. Also, in construing these environmental statutes concerning solid waste management and disposal, SDCL 34A-2-1 must be considered as to the adverse impact of a solid waste dump. The statute provides:
Whereas the pollution of the waters of this state constitutes a menace to public health and welfare, creates public nuisances, is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses of water, and whereas the problem of water pollution in this state is closely related to the problem of water pollution in adjoining states, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state to conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate uses; to provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of the state without first receiv-. ing the necessary treatment or other corrective action to protect the legitimate and beneficial uses of such waters; to provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new and existing water pollution; and to co-operate with other agencies of the state, agencies of other states and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.
Although I agree in the result of the opinion written by Justice Amundson, in reversing the approval of the permit, I believe that, additionally, this permit should not stand because the hearing officer, without explanation, denied the inter-venors’ timely request for an environmental impact statement. I fully appreciate that requiring such an impact statement is discretionary, rather than mandatory under South Dakota law. In re Decision of Water Management Board, 351 N.W.2d 119, 124 (S.D.1984). I rely on Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke, 473 F.2d *516346 (8th Cir.1972). In Froehlke, it was noted that at least four purposes are served by an environmental impact statement:
1. To ensure that agency officials will be acquainted with the trade-offs which will have to be made if any particular line of action is chosen;
2. To explicate fully the agency’s course of inquiry, analysis, and reasoning, thus opening up the agency’s decision-making process to critical evaluation by those outside the agency, including the public;
3. To supply a convenient record for courts to use in reviewing agency decisions on the merits; and
4. To provide full disclosure to the public of environmental issues.
Minnesota Pub. Interest Research Group v. Butz, 541 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 922, 97 S.Ct. 1340, 51 L.Ed.2d 601 (1977).
I am particularly impressed with a part of the testimony of Clark G. Haberman, Director of the Air Quality and Solid Waste Division of the Department of Water and Natural Resources, who expressed that the application for the permit had not proceeded in the normal course of events.
In my opinion, there was an abuse of discretion to not require an environmental impact study. This facility, as designed, would take in approximately 1 million tons of garbage a year. This includes 1,200,000 pounds of hazardous waste including toluene, benzine and ammonia in the first year of operation, irrespective of any screening process which the applicant may employ. I am not a scientist but the permit would, uniquely, employ a “liner” which is to encase, apparently, millions of tons of garbage. An objective viewpoint by an impact investigation and statement, would address concerns for the environment and, particularly, an analysis of a “worst-case” scenario. Save our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1984); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 628 F.Supp. 1557 (D.C. Or.1986).
TIP requested this impact statement approximately five weeks before the scheduled hearing. It is to be noted that this motion was made at the first hearing in the contested case; considering the disastrous consequences that could conceivably occur under a “worst-case” scenario, an environmental impact statement should have been ordered. Therefore, I dissent on Issue I.
II.
I concur on Issues II, III and IV. In so doing, I deign to express that entering findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the majority opinion, in the future proceedings below, are to be anything but mechanical. In other words, I do not perceive the entering of findings of fact and conclusions of law to simply have been, at the trial court level, technically incorrect. Rather, a finding that (1) the facility would be environmentally safe and a finding that (2) the facility would be in the public interest, must be based on a deep, piercing, reflective analysis which is based upon all of the testimony and, in my opinion, an environmental impact study. Potentially, a project involving nearly 8 million tons of solid waste poses serious threats to the environment of the State of South Dakota. I would opt that the Board take further evidence to determine if this facility is environmentally safe and if its construction and operation is in the public interest of all of the citizens of our state. See, SDCL 34A-6-1.3.
A further objective assessment of the risks presented by this project is needed. New findings of fact and conclusions of law should be entered. “Public interest is not susceptible of precise definition.” In re Application of Bermensolo, 82 Idaho 254, 352 P.2d 240, 242 (1960). It “does not mean anything so narrow as the interests of the particular locality, which may be affected by the matters in question.” State ex rel. Glenn v. Crocket, 86 Okl. 124, 206 P. 816, 817 (1922).
I am extremely concerned that the principals of SDDS have never owned, operated, or managed a solid waste garbage dump. According to the testimony below, this company has a current negative net worth and it is anticipated that the company will *517generate approximately a 19 million dollar loss over its first three years of operation. This dump will generate leachate during its active operation. SDDS proposes a “geo-textile liner” to hold the toxic waste. Will the liner system work? This must be determined below. These are further considerations that should be legitimately considered in approving any permit to SDDS in the future.