Haas Trucking, Inc. v. Hancock County Solid Waste Authority
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00373-COA
HAAS TRUCKING, INC.
APPELLANT
v.
HANCOCK COUNTY SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITY AND HANCOCK COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
02/06/2009
HON. LAWRENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS JR.
HANCOCK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
R. HAYES JOHNSON JR.
RONALD J. ARTIGUES JR.
PATRICK W. KIRBY
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
HANCOCK COUNTY SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITY
AFFIRMED – 03/02/2010
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal arises out of the Hancock County Solid Waste Authority’s ( the
Authority) decision to revise a proposed amendment to the Hancock County Solid Waste
Management Plan. The original proposal included a site owned by Haas Trucking, Inc., but
the site was not included in the revised proposal.1 Feeling aggrieved, Haas Trucking appeals
1
Boudin’s Environmental Services, LLC, another company whose site was removed
and asserts that the Hancock County Circuit Court erred in finding that the Authority’s
revised proposal is legitimate.2
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3.
In February 2006, the Authority put out a public notice, seeking applications “from
developers and operators for Class I rubbish sites in Hancock County, Mississippi.” The
notice stated that the Authority would “review all requests and make a determination of need
as to whether additional sites are needed and/or will be included in the application process
for a plan amendment.” Haas Trucking submitted a request seeking inclusion of their site
in the amendment. Where the application requested a “brief description of the need for the
proposed facility,” Haas Trucking stated that their site was a “[g]ood location for possible
future landfill services in the buffer zone.” Haas Trucking was included as a Class I rubbish
site in the proposed plan amendment; an engineering firm that helped the Authority select
the sites stated that the Haas Trucking site would “provide the citizens of Hancock County
a conveniently located landfill that will reduce transportation cost[s].”
Boudin
Environmental also requested, and was granted, inclusion as a site in the proposed
amendment.
¶4.
In November 2006, the Authority ratified its proposed amendment. On December 21,
2006, the Authority submitted the ratified proposal to the Mississippi Department of
from the revised proposal, has filed an amicus curiae brief in this matter.
2
Haas Trucking asserts four contentions of error, all of which we consider under the
single conclusive issue of whether the revised proposal was valid.
2
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). As submitted, the proposed amendment suggested the
establishment of eight additional waste-disposal sites, including the sites owned by Haas
Trucking and Boudin Environmental. At the time of the proposal, one Class I rubbish site
was already in operation in Hancock County.
¶5.
According to Mississippi Code Annotated section 17-17-227(6) (Supp. 2009), the
MDEQ must either accept or reject a proposal, by means of an order, within one hundred and
eighty days of the proposal’s submission. However, instead of issuing an order accepting or
rejecting the proposal, the MDEQ sent a letter, dated February 26, 2007, to the Authority
expressing concerns over the number of sites included in the proposal. The MDEQ further
offered the support and aid of an engineering firm, Neel-Schaffer Engineers. The record
indicates that the Authority chose to accept the aid of Neel-Schaffer.
¶6.
On June 21, 2007, Neel-Schaffer presented the Authority with a recommendation of
three sites that the firm believed would meet Hancock County’s waste-management needs.
On August 21, 2007, after reviewing Neel-Schaffer’s recommendations, the Authority
ratified a revised plan amendment to propose to the MDEQ.3 Instead of the eight sites that
were originally proposed, the revised proposal contained only one additional Class I rubbish
site, the “King site.” Neel-Schaffer had recommended the King site, as well as two other
sites, for a number of reasons. None of the three sites recommended by Neel-Schaffer were
owned by Haas Trucking or Boudin Environmental.
¶7.
On August 30, 2007, Haas Trucking filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court, giving
3
The Authority debated whether to adopt Neel-Schaffer’s recommendations
completely but could not reach a consensus regarding whether to do so.
3
notice of its “intent to appeal [the] decision of the Hancock County Solid Waste Authority,
dated Aug[ust] 21, 2007. . . . The contested decision involved Appellant’s request to have
Hancock County’s Solid Waste Management Plan amended to designate Appellant’s
property as a Class I landfill.” On November 19, 2008, Boudin Environmental filed a motion
in the circuit court to intervene in Haas Trucking’s appeal. At a hearing the following day,
the circuit court denied Boudin Environmental’s motion but allowed it to file an amicus
curiae brief.
¶8.
On February 9, 2009, the circuit court issued an order affirming the decision of the
Authority. The circuit court found that the Authority’s decision to adopt the King site as the
only proposed site to add to the waste-management plan “clearly lays out the reasons and
evidence support [sic] the Authority’s decision to select the King Site as a Class I rubbish
site, to the exclusion of other applicants.” It is from that order that Haas Trucking appeals.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶9.
Our supreme court has explained the standard of review that applies when dealing
with the decision or order of an administrative agency:
[An appellate court] will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only
if the decision (1) was unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) was arbitrary
and capricious; (3) was beyond the power of the administrative agency to
make; or (4) violated the complaining party’s statutory or constitutional right.
Hinds County Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trs. v. R.B. ex rel. D.L.B., 10 So. 3d 387,
394-95 [(¶17)] (Miss. 2008). An agency may not adopt rules and regulations
which are contrary to statutory provisions or which exceed or conflict with the
authority granted by statute. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Miss. Power & Light
Co., 593 So. 2d 997, 1000, 1004 (Miss. 1991). “[A]n agency’s rule-making
power does not extend to the adoption of regulations which are inconsistent
with actual statutes.” Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 749 So. 2d 1017,
1023 [(¶24)] (Miss. 1999) (citing State ex rel. Pittman v. Miss. Public Serv.
Comm’n, 538 So. 2d 367, 373 (Miss. 1989)).
4
An agency’s interpretation of a rule or statute governing the agency’s
operation is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo, but with great deference
to the agency’s interpretation. Sierra Club v. Miss. Envtl. Quality Permit Bd.,
943 So. 2d 673, 678 [(¶10)] (Miss. 2006) (quoting McDerment v. Miss. Real
Estate Comm’n, 748 So. 2d 114, 118 [(¶9)] (Miss. 1999)). This “duty of
deference derives from our realization that the everyday experience of the
administrative agency gives it familiarity with the particularities and nuances
of the problems committed to its care which no court can hope to replicate.”
Gill v. Miss. Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation, 574 So. 2d 586, 593 (Miss. 1990).
However, if an agency’s interpretation is contrary to the unambiguous terms
or best reading of a statute, no deference is due. Sierra Club, 943 So. 2d at
679 [(¶17)].
Miss. Methodist Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr, Inc. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 21 So. 3d 600, 606-07
(¶¶14-15) (Miss. 2009).
¶10.
The sole question in this appeal is whether the Authority’s 2007 proposed amendment
of its twenty-year waste-disposal plan was appropriate.
Haas Trucking and Boudin
Environmental assert a number of arguments as to why the Authority was without authority
to reject or revise its 2006 proposed amendment.
¶11.
The contention that underlies most of Hass Trucking’s arguments is that the existence
of the Authority’s 2006 proposed amendment, which was never officially rejected by the
MDEQ, somehow necessitates a finding that the 2007 proposal is invalid. Notably, Haas
Trucking contends (1) that the proper procedures were not followed in regard to the 2006
proposal, (2) that the letter sent from the MDEQ finding fault with the 2006 proposal was “an
unauthorized exercise of administrative decision-making authority,” and (3) that the doctrine
of res judicata bars the 2007 proposal.
¶12.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 17-17-227(6) states, in pertinent part, that:
Upon ratification of the plan, the governing body of the county, authority or
5
district shall submit it to the commission for review and approval . . . . The
commission shall, by order, approve or disapprove the plan within one
hundred eighty (180) days after its submission. The commission shall include
with an order disapproving a plan a statement outlining the deficiencies in the
plan and directing the governing body of the county, authority or district to
submit, within one hundred twenty (120) days after issuance of the order, a
revised plan that remedies those deficiencies.
(Emphasis added). Therefore, after the Authority submitted its proposed amendment in
2006, the MDEQ had one hundred and eighty days in which to respond to the proposal with
an order either rejecting or accepting the proposal. However, no such order was ever issued
by the MDEQ. Haas Trucking contends that the non-existence of such an order means that
the 2006 proposal is still viable and, in fact, prohibits the Authority from submitting a
different proposal.
¶13.
While the MDEQ should have issued an order denying or approving the 2006
proposal, we cannot find that the failure to do so means that the MDEQ implicitly accepted
the 2006 proposal. No statute states that a failure of the MDEQ to respond in accordance
with the statutory guidelines constitutes an acceptance of a submitted proposal. In the
absence of some statutory impetus, we will not find that the absence of an order regarding
a proposal constitutes an acceptance of that proposal. The same statute that states that the
MDEQ’s rejection of a proposal must be done by means of an order also states exactly the
same regarding the MDEQ’s acceptance of a proposal. In the absence of an order accepting
the 2006 proposal, we find that it remained merely a proposal, subject to revision or
alteration by the Authority, taking into account any discussion or guidelines offered by the
MDEQ.
¶14.
Thus, we find no merit to any contention that the 2007 proposal was invalidated by
6
the 2006 proposed amendment. Haas Trucking and Boudin Environmental also argue,
however, that the Authority’s decision not to include them in the 2007 proposed amendment
was arbitrary and capricious. We find no merit to this contention, either.
¶15.
In its report to the Authority, Neel-Schaffer noted the following about the King site:
The King Site is located in the southern part of the [c]ounty near the centers
of waste generation. The site works well in tandem with the [existing
disposal] site since the site is located south of I-10. Recently traffic congestion
issues along Highway 43 through Kiln created transportation problems for
rubbish disposal at the [existing site]. Even though the Mississippi
Department of Transportation has plans to upgrade the corridor, the location
of the King Site gives an advantage with regard to traffic congestion.
Being located near the centers of waste generation gives the Site an advantage
to serve with good factors considering transportation economics.
A “Rubbish Site Evaluation Matrix” prepared in June 2007, presumably by Neel-Schaffer,
showed that the Haas Trucking site had been rated as having a “good” condition for siting
only in regard to expandability.
Every other consideration in the matrix, such as
accessibility, capacity, and transportation economics was rated only as “fair.” The King site,
by contrast, was rated as “excellent” regarding expandability and as “good” in every category
except capacity, in which it received a rating of “fair.” The Boudin Environmental site
received a rating of “good” in three categories, a “fair” rating as to capacity, and was found
to be “poor” in regard to expandability and coordination with other solid-waste activities.
Of all of the sites evaluated, the King site received the best overall ratings.
¶16.
It was not only Neel-Schaffer that provided positive data regarding the King site; the
2006 report that was prepared by a different engineering firm found that the King site had
7
the second-greatest potential annual waste capacity 4 and a facility life of forty-five years.
Although Haas Trucking’s site was rated as having fifty years of facility life, its estimated
annual waste capacity was one-half to one-quarter that of the estimate for the King site. In
other words, even the 2006 engineering report found that the King site would provide far
better long-term capacity than either the Haas Trucking site or the Boudin Environmental
site.5
¶17.
The minutes from the Authority’s August 2007 meeting, wherein the Authority voted
to include the King Site in its 2007 amendment, state that the Authority considered the
following in choosing the King site: (1) its accessibility “from major transportation
corridors”; (2) its location in southern Hancock County; (3) the convenience of the site; (4)
the large amount of land area possessed by the King site; and (5) the lessening impact that
the King site would have on traffic congestion. The minutes also state that the “action [was]
further based upon all of the factors included in the written report of Neel-Schaffer,” as well
as oral presentations by Neel-Schaffer and comments made at Authority meetings.
¶18.
In its amicus brief, Boudin Environmental contends that the Authority “essentially
turned over to a private engineering firm the selection of the previously[-]approved Class I
sites to be removed from the Plan.
This amounted to an unlawful delegation of a
4
The site with the greatest annual capacity was owned by DK Aggregate and was one
of the three sites recommended by Neel-Schaffer in 2007. Testimony at the circuit court
hearing indicated that the Authority was still considering using the DK Aggregate site as a
regional facility. In any case, DK Aggregate has not joined the present appeal in any
capacity.
5
Boudin Environmental’s site was estimated to have half the annual waste capacity
as the King site and a facility life of only fifteen to twenty years.
8
governmental function to a private entity.” We find this contention is wholly without merit.
It is clear that the Authority considered several sources of information; furthermore, it is
logical that an agency such as the Authority will rely on the expertise of engineering firms
in making such decisions when confronted with a problem beyond the Authority’s scope of
expertise. We find that the Authority did no more than that in this case. In fact, the
Authority could not reach a unanimous decision as to whether to accept Neel-Schaffer’s
recommendations in their entirety.
¶19.
It is clear from the Authority’s minutes that it considered multiple factors in selecting
the King site over other sites. Furthermore, the engineering reports, both from Neel-Schaffer
and from the 2006 firm, show that there are substantial advantages to the King site over
either Haas Trucking’s or Boudin Environmental’s site. On the basis of the above, we
conclude that the Authority’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported
by substantial evidence.
¶20.
This contention of error is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.
¶21. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANCOCK COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND
MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. ISHEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
