Reserve Min. Co. v. Herbst
| Decision Date | 27 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | 47528,Nos. 47504,47537 and 47575,AFL-CI,C,47529,47530,s. 47504 |
| Citation | 256 N.W.2d 808 |
| Parties | RESERVE MINING COMPANY, Armco Steel Corporation, Republic Steel Corporation, United Steelworkers of America,ity of Silver Bay, City of Beaver Bay, Lake County, Northeastern Minnesota Development Association, Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce, City of Babbitt, Range League of Municipalities, Lax Lake Property Owners Association, The Silver Bay Chamber of Commerce, The Township of Beaver Bay, and St. Louis County, Respondents, v. Robert L. HERBST, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, State of Minnesota, Save Lake Superior Association, Sierra Club, Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, and Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association, Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the district court is acting in an appellate capacity with respect to administrative agencies, the supreme court on appeal again scrutinizes the agency decision and accords the trial court only such deference as it would give to the opinions of other appellate jurisdictions.
2. In reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies, the district court and the supreme court are governed by the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Minn.St. 15.0425, and shall determine inter alia whether the agencies' findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether their conclusions are arbitrary and capricious.
3. It is error for an administrative agency to designate as "feasible and prudent" an alternative site for a tailings basin dam under Minn.St. 116B.09, subd. 2, where the undisputed evidence indicates that the site selected by the mining company will support a safe structure.
4. The designation of a tailings site within a national forest is not a feasible and prudent alternative to a site selected elsewhere by a mining company where the impact on natural resources at the two locations will not differ significantly and the intrusion of an industrial development into the national forest would be inconsistent with the purposes and uses permitted by Federal law.
5. Standards of air quality adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 514 F.2d 492, 538-39 (1975), govern state and Federal administrative agencies and courts in establishing medically safe levels for the emission of carcinogenic fibers from the operation of taconite plants and tailings sites.
6. Where the evidence compels a finding that projected amphibole fiber levels to be generated by a proposed on-land tailings site may be dangerous to the health of those in the proximity of the site, it is error for an administrative agency to designate a more remote site as a "feasible and prudent alternative." Under such circumstances it is the duty of the agency to require the mining company which will use the site either to mitigate their processes further to achieve a safe level of emission or to terminate their operations altogether.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., James M. Schoessler, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Morris M. Sherman and Edward Moersfelder, Minneapolis, for Herbst, et al.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Richard Allyn, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Eldon G. Kaul, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan R. Mitchell and John-Mark Stensvaag, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Roseville, for Mn. Poll. Control, etc.
Dayton, Herman & Graham, Minneapolis, for Save Lake Superior Assoc. & Sierra Club.
Elliot C. Rothenberg, Minneapolis, for Mn. Pub. Int. Group, et al.
O.C. Adamson, II, Minneapolis, Edward T. Fride, Duluth, Maclay R. Hyde, William T. Egan, G. Alan Cunningham, Minneapolis, Wayne G. Johnson, Silver Bay, John G. Engberg, Minneapolis, for respondents.
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett and Curtis D. Forslund, Minneapolis, amicus curiae for Rodney B. Nelson, for United States, Peter R. Taft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edmund B. Clark, Alfred T. Ghiorzi, and John E. Varnum, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., G. William Frick, Gen. Counsel, Pamela P. Quinn, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
These appeals arise from proceedings which were initiated on November 18, 1974, by Reserve Mining Company (Reserve) to obtain permits from the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources An appeal was taken by Reserve to a three-judge panel of the District Court of Lake County which received additional evidence from November 3, 1976, to December 3, 1976. On January 28, 1977, the trial court filed orders on which judgments were entered on January 31, 1977, directing the DNR and PCA to issue permits to Reserve for Mile Post 7. Appeals to this court were begun on February 1 by the DNR and the attorney general, followed by appeals of the PCA and various other intervenors.
(DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) for construction of an on-land disposal site at Mile Post 7 near Silver Bay in Lake County in response to mandates of the Federal court to discontinue the use of Lake Superior for the disposal of tailings. Both agencies appointed as a hearing officer Wayne H. Olson, an attorney, previously commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, who took testimony from June 23, 1975, to March 18, 1976, and on June 23, 1976. He made findings and on May 26, 1976, recommended against granting permits for Mile Post 7 in favor of an alternative site, preferably Midway, hereafter referred to as Mile Post 20. The PCA Board rejected these recommendations on June 15, 1976, but thereafter reversed its decision and on July 1, 1976, joined the DNR in accepting the hearing officer's recommendations. (See appendix for maps of alternative sites.)
Oral arguments were presented to the full court on April 7, 1977. 1 On April 8, 1977, the court rendered the following decision to which this opinion is addressed: 2
with all exposed tailings to be adequately vegetated as soon as possible. Upon termination, the entire tailings basin shall be totally vegetated as soon as possible using the then best available technology.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Minn. Power for Auth. to Increase Rates for Elec. Serv. in Minn.
...expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.” Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.1977). While we review legal questions de novo, we review factual determinations made within the scope of the agency's statutor......
-
In re Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake, A04-2033.
...to be correct, and we ordinarily accord deference to an agency in its field of expertise." Id. at 771 (citing Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.1977)). But the court went on to conclude that "[b]ecause the interpretation of a federal regulation is a question of law, we......
-
In re 401 Water Quality Certification, No. A12–1661.
...Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d)-(f)). The agency's decision “ ‘enjoy[s] a presumption of correctness.’ ” Id. (quoting Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.1977)). We give “ ‘deference ... to the agencies' expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical trainin......
-
In re Reissuance of an Npdes/SDS Permit to U.S. Steel Corp., A18-2094
...is "to examine the evidence on which [the] conclusions are based and determine whether they are well founded." Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , 256 N.W.2d 808, 828 (Minn. 1977). In applying the substantial-evidence test, a reviewing court must "determine whether the agency has adequately expl......