McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 07-CA-59604

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation604 So.2d 312
Docket NumberNo. 07-CA-59604,07-CA-59604
PartiesJohn W. McGOWAN v. MISSISSIPPI STATE OIL & GAS BOARD.
Decision Date24 June 1992

David K. McGowan, Jackson, for appellant.

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Tim Waycaster, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and McRAE, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court:

I.

Today's appellant challenges the State Oil and Gas Board's denial of permission that he operate salt water disposal wells without a device known as a packer. En route he presents fundamental questions of law and policy in our regulatory state. We consider these with care for at their core they challenge the efficacy of what we have known for near half a century.

We find in the end the Board has been charged by law to enforce two competing public policies--the prevention of waste and the control of environmental hazards. The Board has not favored us with minimally adequate findings on these points, much less an explanation how it has evaluated and balanced the competing interests and decided which should rule the day.

We vacate and remand.

II.

John W. McGowan ("McGowan") is in the oil business. Like others, he has, over the years, struggled with the problem of salt water disposal. The Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board ("the Board") has taken the position that salt water disposal wells must As McGowan sees it, producing oil wells over time yield increasingly greater percentages of salt water and increasingly smaller percentages of oil, and this progression becomes geometrically pronounced as the well approaches the end of its economic life. In his view, the increasing cost of disposing of this salt water vis-a-vis the decreasing oil revenues eventually causes wells to be abandoned. McGowan's "packerless" salt water disposal design allows him to dispose of huge volumes of salt water more economically. Using this design, McGowan says he has purchased and now operates 130 producing wells in four states--wells which, in his view, would otherwise have had to be abandoned. He sees the benefits of his design as substantial production we would otherwise do without, considerable revenue for thousands of working interest and royalty owners, as well as the state through severance taxes. He argues the continued lives of these wells provide a source of employment for hundreds of people. More globally, McGowan trumpets a technology offering hope for a declining industry.

be equipped with a packer, ostensibly to better protect underground sources of drinking water ("USDW"). McGowan's wells contain no packer, and he has of late sought regulatory approval of his "packerless" engineering design and methodology for disposal by subsurface injection.

In 1984, McGowan obtained from the Board provisional permits to operate several of his salt water disposal wells without a packer. 1 In December of 1986, he applied for a new permit for two such wells in the Heidelberg Field in Jasper County, again with packerless exceptions, citing his record under the 1984 permits. He presented his case at the Board's regular January, 1987, meeting. Before acting on the application, the Board, on January 26, 1987, ordered McGowan to appear at its February meeting to show cause why the packerless permits for three other salt water disposal wells should not be revoked or modified. See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 25-43-13 (Supp.1990). During the course of the hearings that followed, McGowan filed new applications for packerless permits in the Cranfield and LaGrange Fields in Adams County, proposed conforming amendments to his existing permits, and asked that packerless completions be authorized under the then-pending amendments to Statewide Rule 63. All of these matters were ultimately consolidated and heard by the Board over a period of several months.

At the hearings, McGowan offered extensive proof regarding the productivity and efficiency and safety of his packerless design, and, as well, his air pressure testing methodology. Witnesses in opposition--produced by Board staff, rather than third parties--addressed environmental concerns only. These witnesses did not concede the superiority of McGowan's design, but questioned primarily the Board's ability to test McGowan's wells and monitor environmental safety.

In the end, the Board entered a series of orders rejecting McGowan's packerless processes. On July 22, 1987, the Board acted as follows:

(a) Order No. 279-87, denied "by majority vote" McGowan's Petition for Authority to Recomplete, Work Over and Operate the Mrs. L.H. Eddy Heidelberg No. 1 Well for Salt Water Disposal.

(b) Order No. 280-87, denied "by majority vote" McGowan's Petition for Authority to Recomplete, Work Over and Operate the Mrs. L.H. Eddy Estate No. 1 Well for Salt Water Disposal.

(c) Order No. 281-87, granted "by majority vote" the Board's Motion to Consider the Revocation, Modification or Reissuing of Board Order No. 473-84 for the West Segment South Unit 1-14-2 Salt Water Disposal well in Tinsley Field, Yazoo County, Mississippi, "to require a packer to be placed in the referenced well...."

(d) Order No. 282-87, granted "by majority vote" the Board's Motion to Consider the Revocation, Modification or Reissuing (e) Order No. 283-87, granted "by majority vote" the Board's Motion to Consider the Revocation, Modification or Reissuing of Board Order No. 617-84 for the Pickens Field--Madison County SWDW No. 1 Salt Water Disposal Well in Pickens Field, "to require a packer to be placed in the referenced well...."

of Board Order No. 616-84 for the Pickens Field--Yazoo County SWDW No. 1 Salt Water Disposal Well in Pickens Field, Yazoo County, Mississippi, "to require a packer to be placed in the referenced well...."

(f) Order No. 284-87, denied "by majority vote" McGowan's Petition for Authority to Work Over and Operate the Ella G. Lees SWDW No. 32 Well Without a Packer, Cranfield Field.

Then, on December 16, 1987, the Board entered these further orders:

(g) Order No. 511-87, denied McGowan's Petition for Authority to Amend Order No. 213-85, which authorized packerless injection with certain restrictions and requirements in O.L. Wilson No. 6 Well, LaGrange Field.

(h) Order No. 512-87, denied McGowan's Petition for Authority to Amend Order No. 230-85, which authorized packerless injection with certain restrictions and requirements in O.L. Wilson No. 2 Well, LaGrange Field.

(i) Order No. 513-87, denied "by majority vote" McGowan's Petition for Authority to Operate Without a Packer the O.L. Wilson No. 1 Well, LaGrange Field.

(j) Order No. 514-87, denied "by majority vote" McGowan's Petition for Authority to Operate Without a Packer the O.L. Wilson No. 8 Well, LaGrange Field.

McGowan timely sought judicial review of each of these orders (and others not technically before us in the present proceeding) in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, in matters designated by seven separate docket numbers, but ultimately consolidated for hearing. In due course, the Circuit Court considered McGowan's application and, noting the Board orders appealed from were made on three-to-two votes, held in the end it should

accord to this agency a presumption of regularity and integrity and that [this] presumption has not been overcome by facts evident in this record. This Court is therefore duty-bound to adhere to the substantial evidence rule with regard to the central issue in these proceedings, whether the Board should permit further packerless completions at this time.

The Circuit Court then denied McGowan's application with respect to each of the orders noted above, but stayed the effectiveness of its ruling pending appeal to this Court.

III.

McGowan challenges the institutional processes of the State Oil and Gas Board. His complaint is that the Board was both his adversary and his judge. He struggles mightily to convince us we should strike this familiar feature of the administrative landscape, on grounds it offends due process, the right to which is secured to him by Art. 3, Sec. 14 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, and ultimately by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. McGowan argues the idea implicit in the substantial evidence rule, one familiar expression of limited judicial review of agency action, is that an independent arbiter has found the facts and has applied the law.

We do not take the point lightly, for it is premised upon that ancient first principle of justice, that no man shall serve as judge of his own cause. Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng.Rep. 646, 652 (1610); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942, 946 (1955). Beyond its natural appeal, we find the principle a part of our jurisprudence in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Bell v. City of Bay St. Louis, 467 So.2d 657, 662 (Miss.1985); Danner v. Mid-State Paving Co., 252 Miss. 776, 786, 173 So.2d 608, 613 (1965), quoted in Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 635, 640 (Miss.1988).

A few basics. Administrative agencies are ambiguous creatures born of necessity McGowan's point is not new. See Dampier v. Lawrence County School District, 344 So.2d 130 (Miss.1977). The leading case is Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). In Withrow, the Supreme Court summarized:

mired in the tension between public policy and personal claims of right. 2 They pursue pragmatically the public interest balancing the utilitarian (and expertly divined) calculus of aggregate net benefit against the individual's claim to fair opportunity and process. 3 They address pressing questions of political economy and science where there are seldom easy answers and almost never only two points of view. Our administrators also regulate and facilitate individual enterprise without which the public interest will surely suffer. 4 Here, as well, "the life of the law has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Mississippi Com'n of Judicial Performance v. Russell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 6, 1997
    ...violates due process. However, this Court has addressed the combination of these functions in other fora. See McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312 (Miss.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052, 113 S.Ct. 976, 122 L.Ed.2d 130 (1993); Harrison County School Bd. v. Morreale, 53......
  • Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Deakle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 14, 1995
    ...this precise point, State Oil & Gas Bd. v. McGowan, 542 So.2d 244, 248-49 (Miss.1989), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 604 So.2d 312 (Miss.1992), provides some guidance. In McGowan, the Board argued that the ancient bill of discovery had not survived the adoption of the Mississippi R......
  • MISSISSIPPI GAMING COM'N v. Freeman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 17, 1999
    ...Id. at 148. Mississippi has likewise adopted a similar attitude toward administrative proceedings. See McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312, 317-18 (Miss.1992) (the rules of practice, procedure and evidence, formally observed in courts of law, are relaxed in proceedings......
  • Adams v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., U.S. Oil & Gas Ass'n, Murphy Oil United States, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 12, 2014
    ...we must be able to understand why the agency ruled as it did.” Anadarko, 99 So.3d at 111 (citing McGowan v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312, 323 (Miss.1992)). Regarding decisions of the Board, this Court has noted “ ‘[i]t is not for this Court to substitute its opinion for the opin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT