NOR PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL v BRD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14215 I N THE S P E E COUIZT O THE S A E OF MONTANA UR M F T T 1978 NOF?EEF!N PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL NOIiTHEEW CHEYENNE TRIBE, INC., AND Petitioners and Respondents, -VS- BQARD O NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSEFWiTION, et a l . , F Respondents and A p p l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the F i r s t J d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: W. H. Bellingham argued, Billings, Pbntana John L. Peterson argued, Butte, PJbntana Richard Andriolo argued, Bozeman, I4mta.m Wurice F. Hennessey argued, Butte, lbntana C. W. Leaphart, Jr., Helena, Pbntana N e i l S. Keefer, Billings, Fbntana John W. Ross, Butte, PJbntana For Respondents : Leo C. Graybill, Jr. argued and G r e g o r y W a r n e r argued, G r e a t F a l l s , Pbntana For Amicus Curiae: Benjamin W. Hilley argued, Great F a l l s , Pbntana D. Patrick ?&Kittrick, Great F a l l s , Pbntana Sulsanitted: October 24, 1978 5 + Decided: Filed : -- - .q ,'3 , & = : 193 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. P u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 70-801 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-101 e t s e q . MCA ( h e r e i n a f t e r " S i t i n g A c t " ) , t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s " ) , on J u l y 22, 1976, g r a n t e d t o t h e Montana Power Company, P u g e t Sound Power and L i g h t Company, P o r t l a n d G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Company, t h e Washington Water Power Company, and P a c i f i c Power and L i g h t Company ( h e r e i n a f t e r " U t i l i t i e s " ) , a c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p a t a b i l i t y and p u b l i c need f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e f a c i l i t y known as C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 . Respondents and c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t s appealed t h i s d e c i s i o n t o t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District Court, L e w i s and C l a r k County, under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , s e c t i o n 82-4201 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-101 "MAPA"). e t s e q . MCA ( h e r e i n a f t e r The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e v e r s e d and remanded t h e m a t t e r t o t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources f o r r e h e a r i n g . From t h i s o r d e r b o t h appellants/cross-respondents and r e s p o n dents/cross-appellants appeal t o t h i s Court. The two ap- p e a l s have been c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r h e a r i n g and d e c i s i o n . To p r o p e r l y i n d i c a t e t h e monumental p r o p o r t i o n s t h i s m a t t e r has taken, w e b e l i e v e i t i s necessary t o s e t f o r t h i t s background i n some d e t a i l a s was done by t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources i n i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , o p i n i o n , d e c i s i o n , o r d e r and recommendations. This a l s o w i l l h e l p t o i l l u m i n a t e t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l and p l a c e t h i s controversy i s perspective. P u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s of t h e S i t i n g A c t , on J u n e 6, 1973, t h e U t i l i t i e s f i l e d w i t h t h e Montana Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Department of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s " ) a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need f o r t h e proposed C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 . F i l e d contemporaneously was a p e t i t i o n f o r waiver of t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t s a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 70-806, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-211 MCA, and a f i l i n g f e e of $1,232,930. The U t i l i t i e s a l s o f i l e d w i t h t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s of t h e proposed p r o j e c t and r e l a t e d f a c i l i t i e s e n t i t l e d " C o l s t r i p G e n e r a t i o n and T r a n s m i s s i o n P r o j e c t . " T h i s e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s w a s d a t e d November 1973 and w a s p r e p a r e d by t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l s y s t e m s d e p a r t m e n t of Westinghouse E l e c t r i c C o r p o r a t i o n . The Department of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 70-807 and 70-816, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 75-20-216 and 75-20-503 MCA, o f t h e S i t i n g A c t , conducted a n e x t e n s i v e s t u d y o v e r a p e r i o d o f 600 d a y s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and i s s u e d i t s d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t i n November 1974, recommending a g a i n s t t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Subsequent t o i s s u i n g t h e d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact s t a t e ment, t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources conducted a series o f p u b l i c m e e t i n g s t o g a i n i n p u t from t h e p u b l i c r e g a r d i n g t h e proposed p r o j e c t and t h e a n a l y s i s t h e r e o f c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d r a f t environmental impact statement. On o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 2 1 , 1975, t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources rel e a s e d i t s f i n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t on t h e proposed p r o j e c t c o n t a i n i n g i t s recommendations a g a i n s t g r a n t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and t r a n s m i t t e d t h e same t o t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s . The Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , on r e c e i p t of t h e recommendations from t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and a f t e r due and d e l i b e r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i s s u e d a n o r d e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 4 , 1975. I n i t s o r d e r t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources deemed t h a t t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e i t , i . e . , the appli- c a t i o n f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need f o r t h e proposed C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 , would be c o n s i d e r e d a c o n t e s t e d c a s e a s d e f i n e d i n MAPA, s e c t i o n 82-4201 e t s e q . , R.C.M. MCA. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-101 e t seq. Subsequent t o i s s u i n g t h i s o r d e r , t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources i s s u e d o r d e r s on F e b r u a r y 7, 1975 and F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1975, p e r t a i n i n g t o m a t t e r s of p r o c e d u r e t o b e f o l l o w e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e f e r r i n g t o t h e methods of d i s c o v e r y and d e t e r m i n i n g t h e burden of p r o o f . The Board of N a t u r a l Resources f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g would commence o n March 1 0 , 1975, a t Bozeman, Montana. N o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f t h e h e a r i n g was g i v e n t o a l l p a r t i e s and p u b l i s h e d i n d a i l y newspapers t h r o u g h o u t Montana t o i n f o r m t h e p u b l i c . On March 1 0 , 1975, t h e h e a r - i n g began, a t which t i m e motions w e r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources by t h e opponents of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g u n t i l May 1 3 , 1975, t o a f f o r d t h e p a r t i e s t i m e t o complete d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e s . Also, objec- t i o n s w e r e made t o a member of t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s s e r v i n g a s h e a r i n g s examiner. On ~ p r i 1 7 , 1975, l t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources c o n t i n u e d t h e h e a r i n g u n t i l A p r i l 21, 1975, and on A p r i l 1 0 , 1975, C a r l M. ~ a v i s was a p p o i n t e d by t h e Board a s h e a r i n g s examiner t o p r e s i d e o v e r t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g p h a s e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Following a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t h e p a r t i e s , t h e h e a r i n g s examiner, by o r d e r d a t e d A p r i l 1 5 , 1975, d i r e c t e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o reconvene on A p r i l 21, 1975, a t ~ e l e n a , Montana. By l e t t e r d a t e d A p r i l 1 0 , 1975, t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e Department o f H e a l t h and E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e s ( h e r e i n a f t e r " ~ e p a r t m e n t f H e a l t h " ) n o t i f i e d t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e o s o u r c e s t h a t t h e Department o f H e a l t h c e r t i f i e d t h a t t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i l l n o t v i o l a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . It did not c e r t i f y t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y w i l l n o t v i o l a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d a i r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s and implementation plans. On A p r i l 1 8 , 1975, t h e N o r t h e r n P l a i n s R e s o u r c e C o u n c i l f i l e d Cause No. 38934 i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L e w i s and C l a r k County. A w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n was s e r v e d upon t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and t h e h e a r i n g s e x a m i n e r , d i r e c t i n g them t o d e s i s t and r e f r a i n from any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t and f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d them t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t o n A p r i l 22, 1975. Following t h e hearing t h e c o u r t , o n A p r i l 29, 1975, q u a s h e d t h e w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n , thereby allowing t h e hearing t o continue. The c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e Board o f H e a l t h and E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e s ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Board o f H e a l t h " ) t o h o l d a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c e r t i f i c a t e r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 708 1 0 ( 1 ) ( h ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7 5 - 2 0 - 3 0 1 ( i ) ( h ) MCA, should be issued. The h e a r i n g was r e c o n v e n e d i n H e l e n a on May 5 , 1975. Motions by t h e o p p o n e n t s f o r f u r t h e r c o n t i n u a n c e s were p r e s e n t e d a n d g r a n t e d by t h e h e a r i n g s e x a m i n e r , c o n t i n u i n g t h e h e a r i n g s u n t i l May 20, 1975. On May 9 , 1975, t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne ~ r i b e ,I n c . , f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n i n t h e is- t r i c t C o u r t o f Lewis a n d C l a r k County, Cause No. 39000. T h i s m a t t e r was h e a r d by t h e c o u r t o n May 1 9 , 1 9 7 5 , and judgment was e n t e r e d on t h e same d a t e d i s m i s s i n g t h e a p p l i cation. The p u b l i c h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s f o r m a l l y began on May 20, 1975, and c o n t i n u e d u n t i l June 5, 1975, a t which t i m e t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board o f H e a l t h was commenced w i t h C a r l M. examiner. Davis s e r v i n g as h e a r i n g s The h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board of H e a l t h consumed a t o t a l o f 53 h e a r i n g d a y s and concluded on September 1 5 , 1975 w i t h 53 w i t n e s s e s having t e s t i f i e d . After studying t h e t e s t i m o n y and e x h i b i t s , and t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s , t h e Board o f H e a l t h h e a r d o r a l arguments by c o u n s e l , v i s i t e d t h e s i t e of t h e proposed f a c i l i t i e s and r e n d e r e d i t s d e c i s i o n on November 21, 1975, i s s u i n g i t s conditional c e r t i f i c a t i o n , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 70-810(1)(h), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7 5 - 2 0 - 3 0 1 ( 1 ) ( h ) MCA, of t h e S i t i n g Act. On J u l y 23, 1975, a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of U t i l i t i e s ' in-chief case- i n t h e Board o f H e a l t h h e a r i n g , t h e opponents t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n moved t o d i s m i s s t h e U t i l i t i e s ' p r o c e e d i n g s f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h a motion t o c o n t i n u e f u r t h e r h e a r i n g s u n t i l t h e Board of H e a l t h r u l e d upon t h e motions. The motion t o c o n t i n u e t h e Board of H e a l t h h e a r i n g was d e n i e d on J u l y 24, 1975. The opponents t o t h e a p p l i c a - t i o n f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cause No. 39228, a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of proh i b i t i o n o r mandate commanding t h e Board o f H e a l t h and t h e h e a r i n g s examiner t o c e a s e and r e f r a i n from f u r t h e r proc e e d i n g s u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e c o u r t o r t o show c a u s e t o t h e c o u r t why t h e Board of H e a l t h s h o u l d n o t b e perman e n t l y r e s t r a i n e d from f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s u n t i l t h e ~ o a r d had r u l e d upon o p p o n e n t s ' motion t o d i s m i s s . On J u l y 25, 1975, t h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e U t i l i t i e s ' a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l and d i r e c t e d t t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t o e i t h e r withdraw i t s w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e Supreme C o u r t on J u l y 28, 1975. On J u l y 28, 1975, t h i s C o u r t h e a r d t h e m a t t e r , and a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n b e s e t a s i d e and t h a t t h e h e a r i n g s proceed. The h e a r i n g s examiner f o r t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s i s s u e d a n o r d e r d a t e d December 1 0 , 1975, r e c o v e n i n g t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' h e a r i n g o n J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1976, a t Helena. I n a d d i t i o n he s e t f o r t h c e r t a i n procedures t o b e f o l l o w e d by a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . N o t i c e of t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e h e a r i n g was s e r v e d on a l l p a r t i e s and p u b l i s h e d i n d a i l y newspapers t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e t o inform t h e p u b l i c . The Department of N a t u r a l Resources and t h e N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l f i l e d m o t i o n s w i t h t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , moving t h e Board t o t e r m i n a t e i t s h e a r i n g on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h had n o t c e r t i f i e d , o r had m i s c e r t i f i e d , t h a t t h e proposed C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 would m e e t a p p l i c a b l e a i r and w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . A f t e r a h e a r i n g , t h e motion was d e n i e d . The reconvened h e a r i n g commenced on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1976, and was concluded on March 30, 1976. A t o t a l of n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d , i n c l u d i n g 132 p u b l i c w i t n e s s e s . 255 w i t The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n b o t h t h e Board of H e a l t h h e a r i n g and t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources h e a r i n g , cons i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 17,000 p a g e s , i n c l u d i n g c o p i e s o f t h e e x h i b i t s r e c e i v e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , w e r e s e r v e d upon e a c h member of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t . he Board of N a t u r a l Resources v i s i t e d and i n s p e c t e d t h e proposed f a c i l i t i e s on two o c c a s i o n s . A f t e r due and t i m e l y n o t i c e b e i n g s e r v e d and p u b l i s h e d , i t h e a r d o r a l arguments on May 1 9 and 2 0 , 1976, by a l l p a r t i e s who were p r e s e n t and d e s i r e d t o p r e s e n t arguments. The Board of N a t u r a l Resources h a v i n g i n s p e c t e d t h e s i t e , r e a d t h e r e c o r d of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and t h e proposed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t of t h e p a r t i e s , and h e a r d t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l and p u b l i c p a r t i e s , and h a v i n g d u l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e same and b e i n g f u l l y a d v i s e d i n t h e p r e m i s e s , announced i n a r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d and n o t i c e d m e e t i n g on J u n e 24, 1976, t h a t i t w a s r e a d y t o a c t upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . A motion t o approve t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o c o n s t r u c t C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 and 4 and a s s o c i a t e d f a c i l i t i e s and t o g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s a c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need, s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n s t a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , was seconded and c a r r i e d w i t h f o u r members v o t i n g i n f a v o r of t h e motion and t h r e e members v o t i n g a g a i n s t t h e motion. A m a j o r i t y of t h e Board having approved g r a n t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e Board made i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s d e c i s i o n , o p i n i o n , o r d e r and recommendations. I t g r a n t e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n - m e n t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need t o t h e u t i l i t i e s on J u l y 22, 1976. ~espondents/cross-appellants a p p e a l e d t o t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L e w i s and C l a r k County, which r e v e r s e d and remanded t h e m a t t e r t o t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , ~ p p e a lt o t h i s C o u r t from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i s t a k e n by a l l parties. B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g t h e many i n d i v i d u a l i s s u e s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l o t h e r m a t t e r s which r e q u i r e emphasis by t h i s C o u r t . S e c t i o n 8 2 - 4 2 1 6 ( 7 ) , R.C.M. MCA, 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-704 e n a c t e d i n 1971 a s a p a r t o f MAPA, e s t a b l i s h e s t h e s t a n d a r d s of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of c o n t e s t e d agency d e c i s i o n s . The f o r e g o i n g s u b s e c t i o n commences by s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e agency a s t o t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t . It c o n t i n u e s by p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t may r e v e r s e o r modify t h e agency d e c i s i o n i f s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e a l i n g p a r t y have been p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d (a) i n ings, inferences, conclusions, o r decisions a r e : v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s ; e x c e s s of t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y of t h e agency; upon u n l a w f u l p r o c e d u r e ; (b) i n ( c ) made ( d ) a f f e c t e d by o t h e r e r r o r o f law; ( e ) c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d ; (f) arbitrary or c a p r i c i o u s o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n o r c l e a r l y unwarranted e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n ; o r ( g ) b e c a u s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , upon i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e d e c i s i o n , were n o t made a l t h o u g h r e q u e s t e d . I t i s c l e a r from t h i s s t a t u t e t h a t t h e burden r e s t i n g upon a n a p p e a l i n g p a r t y t o a ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t from a n agency d e c i s i o n i s a s u b s t a n t i a l one. This Court r e c e n t l y set f o r t h t h r e e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g s e c t i o n 82-4216 which a D i s t r i c t C o u r t must c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g what t h e s c o p e of r e v i e w of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s h o u l d be: (1) t h a t l i m i t e d j u d i - c i a l r e v i e w of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s s t r e n g t h e n s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s by e n c o u r a g i n g t h e f u l l p r e s e n t a t i o n of e v i d e n c e a t t h e i n i t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g ; (2) j u d i c i a l economy r e q u i r e s c o u r t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e e x p e r t i s e of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies i n t h e f i e l d of t h e i r responsib i l i t y ; and ( 3 ) l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t a f a i r p r o c e d u r e was u s e d , t h a t q u e s t i o n s of l a w w e r e p r o p e r l y d e c i d e d , and t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body was s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . v i t a - ~ i c hD a i r y , I n c . v . Department o f B u s i n e s s R e g u l a t i o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 341, 553 P.2d 980. A r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n h a s a g r e a t d e a l t o s a y o n t h e s u b j e c t of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f agency d e c i s i o n s . The C o u r t e x p r e s s e s i t s views on t h e p r a c t i c e o f some f e d e r a l j u d g e s i n p l a c i n g t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e agency i n making t h e d e c i s i o n , r a t h e r t h a n f o l l o w i n g t h e c o r r e c t c o u r s e and s e t t i n g a s i d e agency d e c i sions only f o r s u b s t a n t i a l procedural o r substantive reasons a s mandated by s t a t u t e . I n Vermont Yankee N u c l e a r Power Corp. v . N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s Defense C o u n c i l , I n c . U.S. 519, 98 S . C t . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435 1197, 55 L Ed 2d 460, t h e Supreme C o u r t unanimously r e v e r s e d a d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia C i r c u i t which had o v e r t u r n e d t h e Atomic Energy Commission's d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t Vermont Yankee a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e a n u c l e a r power p l a n t . The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s r u l e d t h a t t h e rule-making p r o c e d u r e s o f t h e AEC w e r e i n a d e q u a t e d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e agency had employed a l l t h e p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d by t h e F e d e r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t and more. The Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e C o u r t of A p p e a l s had s e r i o u s l y m i s a p p l i e d s t a t u t o r y and d e c i s i o n a l law c a u t i o n i n g r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s a g a i n s t e n g r a f t i n g t h e i r own n o t i o n s o f p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e s upon a g e n c i e s e n t r u s t e d w i t h s u b s t a n t i v e f u n c t i o n s by C o n g r e s s , 435 U.S. a t 525, and t h a t " [ a l b s e n t c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s o r extremely compelling circumstances t h e ' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies "should be f r e e t o f a s h i o n t h e i r own r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e and t o p u r s u e methods of i n q u i r y c a p a b l e o f p e r m i t t i n g them t o d i s c h a r g e t h e i r m u l t i t u d i n o u s duties. "' . . ." Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. a t 543. I n c a u t i o n i n g t h e lower c o u r t t o judge a n agency d e c i s i o n by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d s o f r e v i e w , t h e Supreme C o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e lower c o u r t s h o u l d " n o t s t r a y beyond t h e j u d i c i a l province t o explore t h e procedural format o r t o impose upon t h e agency i t s own n o t i o n o f which p r o c e d u r e s a r e ' b e s t ' o r m o s t l i k e l y t o f u r t h e r some v a g u e , u n d e f i n e d p u b l i c good." 435 U.S. The c o u r t l e f t l i t t l e d o u b t a t 549. i n stating: ". . . t h e r o l e of a c o u r t i n reviewing t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f a n a g e n c y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of environmental f a c t o r s i s a l i m i t e d one. l i m i t e d b o t h by t h e t i m e a t which t h e d e c i s i o n was made a n d by t h e s t a t u t e mandating r e v i e w . nor i t s "'Neither t h e s t a t u t e -- l e g i s l a t i v e histha t o r y c o n t e m p l a t e s -- t a c o u r t s h o u l d s u b s t i tute its f o r t h a of t h e as to -- judgment - -t- - agency - t h-e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f i t s a c t i o n s . ' e - - [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ] " Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. a t 555. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) A s t o n u c l e a r e n e r g y , t h e C o u r t p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Con- g r e s s had made a c h o i c e t o a t l e a s t t r y n u c l e a r e n e r g y , e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e a s o n a b l e r e v i e w p r o c e s s i n which c o u r t s a r e t o play only a limited role. ". . .The f u n d a m e n t a l p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e s o l v e d i n C o n g r e s s and i n t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s a r e not s u b j e c t t o r e e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s u n d e r t h e g u i s e of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of agency action. . ." 435 U.S. a t 558. The C o u r t c o n c l u d e d w i t h t h e s t r o n g language: ". . . I t i s t o i n s u r e a f u l l y i n f o r m e d and well-considered decision, n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a d e c i s i o n t h e j u d g e s o f t h e C o u r t of A p p e a l s o r o f t h i s C o u r t would have r e a c h e d had t h e y been members of t h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g u n i t of t h e agency. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d b e set a s i d e i n t h i s context, a s i n every o t h e r , only f o r substantial procedural o r substantive r e a s o n s a s mandated by s t a t u t e , Consolo v . FMC, 383 U.S. 607, 620 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , n o t s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t i s unhappy w i t h t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d 435 U.S. a t 558. . . ." Because s o many o f t h e i s s u e s i n t h i s case i n v o l v e t h e f i n d i n g s o f a t l e a s t o n e b o a r d below, w e r e v i e w b r i e f l y what t h i s Court has s t a t e d regarding t h e r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i e d t o f i n d i n g s of f a c t . 1 3 3 Mont. I n Ballenger v. Tillman (1958), 369, 324 P.2d 1045, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t u l t i m a t e f a c t s , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from e v i d e n t i a r y o n e s , a r e t h e f i n d i n g s a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d make. Findings a r e t o r e c e i v e such a c o n s t r u c t i o n as w i l l uphold, r a t h e r t h a n d e f e a t , t h e judgment. This Court quoted with approval a C a l i f o r n i a c a s e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e i s no e r r o r i n t h e f a i l u r e of a t r i a l c o u r t t o make a n e x p r e s s f i n d i n g upon a n i s s u e i f i t was i m p l i c i t i n t h e f i n d i n g s made, and t h a t t h e r e i s no necessity t o negate contradictory a l l e g a t i o n s . B a l l e n g e r was q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n E r i c k s o n v . F i s h e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 491, 554 P.2d 1336, where t h e C o u r t r e j e c t e d a p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g o f f a c t o f f e r e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t b e c a u s e i t was m e r e l y a n e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a n u l t i m a t e f a c t . I t h a s been s t a t e d a n o t h e r way t h a t f i n d i n g s a r e s u f f i - c i e n t i f they d i s p o s e of m a t e r i a l i s s u e s . T r i a l , 51259; 89 C.J.S. T r i a l , 5626. 76 Am J u r 2d, This i s applicable t o c o u r t t r i a l s , and i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t s t r i c t e r r u l e s s h o u l d n o t b e imposed upon a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s . T h i s r e c o r d c o n t a i n s some 17,000 p a g e s o f t r a n s c r i p t ; h u n d r e d s o f e x h i b i t s , i n c l u d i n g a monumental " e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s " ; and h u n d r e d s o f p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law o f t h e Board of H e a l t h a r e 23 pages l o n g , and t h o s e o f t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources r u n 46 pages. 300 p a g e s of b r i e f s were s u b m i t t e d . Approximately Many of t h e q u e s t i o n s involved r e q u i r e f i r s t impression d e c i s i o n s a s t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e M P and o f t h e S i t i n g A c t . AA Due t o t h e many i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , t h e i r c o m p l e x i t y , and t h e voluminous p a g e s of t r a n s c r i p t , w e f i n d i t i m p r a c t i c a l t o s e t f o r t h t h e e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s i n a s i n g l e p o r t i o n of t h i s o p i n i o n . F u r t h e r n e c e s s a r y and a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t s w i l l be discussed with each i s s u e . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t , a s a g r e e d t o by t h e p a r t i e s and a d d r e s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a r e : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g t h a t p r o h i b i - t i o n of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f agency w i t n e s s e s v i o l a t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , s t a t u t e s , and r e g u l a t i o n s , was error? 2. Whether t h e Board o f H e a l t h p r o c e e d i n g s , r e c o r d , t r a n s c r i p t , e x h i b i t s , f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r s i n t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources r e c o r d i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w ? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h e Board o f H e a l t h t o c o n s i d e r s t a t e o r f e d e r a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s i n r e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 70810 (1)( h ) , R.C.M. 4. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301 (1) h ) M A ( C? Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h e Board of H e a l t h t o make f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o whether c e r t a i n a i r and w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s would be complied w i t h , and whether t h e f a c i l i t i e s would have a major i m p a c t on ground w a t e r q u a l i t y ? 5. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources t o c o n s i d e r and make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h e t h e r t h e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e minimum a d v e r s e environmental impact? 6. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g t h a t t h e Board of H e a l t h i s r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y w i t h o u t c o n d i t i o n , complia n c e w i t h a i r a n d water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s and s t a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s , was e r r o r ? 7. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s b e r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r and make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e s i t i n g and l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n c o r r i d o r f o r t h e 430 m i l e s o f t r a n s m i s s i o n lines? 8. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum adverse environmental impact? 9. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a c c e p t e d and r u l e d t h a t p a r t i e s t o t h e p e t i t i o n w e r e adequately served? 10. Whether t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s p r o p e r l y d e n i e d a m o t i o n t o deny t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b a s e d on t h e Board of Health's miscertification o r noncertification of t h e a i r and water q u a l i t y m a t t e r s r e q u i r e d under s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( 1 ) ( h ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301(2) ( h ) MCA? 11. Whether t h e Board o f N a t u r a l ~ e s o u r c e s ' r e f u s a l t o c o n s i d e r t h e minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t as t o r e q u i r i n g more e f f i c i e n t t e c h n o l o g y f o r t h e removal o f SO2 and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g t h a t r e f u s a l i s e r r o r under t h e S i t i n g Act? 12. Whether t h e r e f u s a l of t h e Board o f ~ a t u r a l e R s o u r c e s t o a l l o w i t s members t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v i e w f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a f f i r m i n g t h a t d e c i s i o n , was a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s on t h e p a r t of t h e agency and a d e p r i v a t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o due p r o c e s s and a f u l l and f a i r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board? The f i r s t i s s u e t o b e a d d r e s s e d i s I s s u e No. 9--whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a c c e p t e d and r u l e d t h a t p a r t i e s t o t h e p e t i t i o n w e r e adequately served. did. W believe t h a t it e While t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a s p e c i f i c r u l i n g a s t o t h e e f f e c t u a t i o n of p r o p e r s e r v i c e on a l l p a r t i e s , i t s u r e l y i s c l e a r l y i m p l i e d by i t s v a r i o u s p r e t r i a l o r d e r s and by i t s f i n a l o r d e r r e v e r s i n g and remanding. S u r e l y n e i t h e r t h e U t i l i t i e s n o r t h e agency a p p e l l a n t s / c r o s s - r e s p o n d e n t s have any s t a n d i n g t o complain a b o u t s e r vice i n t h i s matter. Any c o m p l a i n t t h e y m i g h t have had was waived by a g r e e i n g t o t h e d e l i n e a t i o n o f i s s u e s which w e r e f i n a l i z e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of F e b r u a r y 27, 1977. I t i s contended by t h e Union and REA, a p p e l l a n t s / cross-respondents, t h a t t h e y a r e e a c h " p a r t i e s of r e c o r d " f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of s e c t i o n 82-4216 ( 2 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. s e c t i o n 2-4-702 MCA, 1947, now o f t h e MAPA, and t h e r e b y e n t i t l e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s e r v i c e o f a copy of t h e p e t i t i o n of r e v i e w . We f i n d t h a t t h e Union and REA w e r e n o t i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s e n t i t l e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s e r v i c e of a copy of t h e p e t i t i o n of r e v i e w . S t a t e Bd. of Assessment App. Compare, C i s s e l l v . Colorado (Colo. 1 9 7 7 ) , 564 P.2d 1 2 4 , and L i f e of t h e Land v . Land U s e Comn. P.2d 1189. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 58 Haw. 292, 568 They were j o i n t l y r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Brotherhood o f E l e c t r i c a l Workers, a n a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e agency p r o c e e d i n g w a s a c t u a l l y s e r v e d w i t h a copy of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r review. lants/cross-respondents Had t h e s e a p p e l - communicated w i t h one a n o t h e r , t h e y would have had a c t u a l knowledge of t h e p e t i t i o n , i f t h e y d i d n o t have s u c h knowledge from t h e i r c o u n s e l o r t h e newspapers. W e do n o t f e e l t h a t j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of t h e B o a r d ' s a c t i o n s h o u l d b e t h w a r t e d by a p a r t y n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a p r o c e e d i n g , even though i t had knowledge o f i t , and l a t e r a l l o w e d t o complain t h a t t h e c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the matter. The motion of t h e Union and REA t o d i s m i s s t h i s proceeding i s hereby denied. I s s u e No. 2 w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d n e x t . This i s s u e could more p r o p e r l y b e p h r a s e d by a s k i n g whether t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board of H e a l t h was a f i n a l d e c i s i o n under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 82-4216, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-702 of t h e MAPA, a n d , i f s o , whether a n a p p e a l of such o r d e r i s mandatory o r p e r m i s s i v e . On p a g e s 1 6 and 17 o f i t s o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e Board of H e a l t h c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d p r o p e r l y b e viewed a s a " p r e l i m i n a r y , p r o c e d u r a l o r i n t e r m e d i a t e agency a c t i o n " which i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e b e c a u s e r e v i e w of t h e f i n a l agency a c t i o n ( i . e . , t h a t of t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ) p r o v i d e s n o t o n l y a n a d e q u a t e remedy b u t t h e o n l y n e c e s s a r y remedy." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h c e r t i f i c a t i o n had no l e g a l e f f e c t whatsoever u n t i l and u n l e s s t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources g r a n t e d i t s c e r t i f i c a t i o n under s e c t i o n 70-804, now s e c t i o n s 75-20-201 and 75-20-203 MCA. R.C.M. 1947, The c o u r t con- c l u d e d t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h d e c i s i o n c o u l d n o t b e app e a l e d u n t i l t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources g r a n t e d a f i n a l c e r t i f i c a t e of environmental c o m p a t i b i l i t y . S e c t i o n 82-4216, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-702 MCA, provides: " (1)( a ) A p e r s o n who h a s e x h a u s t e d a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e agency a n d who i s a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a contested c a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review under t h i s p a r t . This s e c t i o n does n o t l i m i t u t i l i z a t i o n of o r t h e scope of j u d i c i a l review a v a i l a b l e u n d e r o t h e r means o f r e v i e w , r e d r e s s , r e l i e f , o r t r i a l d e novo p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e . A preliminary, procedural, o r intermediate agency a c t i o n o r r u l i n g i s immediately reviewa b l e i f r e v i e w o f t h e f i n a l agency d e c i s i o n would n o t p r o v i d e a n a d e q u a t e remedy." The i s s u e t h e n i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board o f H e a l t h d a t e d November 21, 1975, c e r t i f y i n g t h a t C o l s t r i p U n i t s 3 a n d 4 would n o t v i o l a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d s and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s , w a s a f i n a l d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e M P a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , AA s h o u l d have b e e n a p p e a l e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t by t h e petitioners a t that time. S e c t i o n 70-810 (1)( h ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 75-20- 3 0 1 ( l ) ( h ) MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s may n o t g r a n t a c e r t i f i c a t e u n t i l i t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e a u t h o r i z e d s t a t e a i r and w a t e r q u a l i t y a g e n c i e s have certif i e d t h a t t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i l l n o t v i o l a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d s and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s . T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h i s t h e d u l y a u t h o r i z e d s t a t e a i r and w a t e r q u a l i t y a g e n c y i n t h i s c a s e . S e c t i o n 70-810, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301 MCA, f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t judgments o f t h e a u t h o r i z e d a i r and water q u a l i t y agencies " a r e conclusive" on a l l q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l a i r and water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . The Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s had no a u t h o r i t y t o r e v i e w t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board o f H e a l t h under any circumstances. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Board o f H e a l t h order w a s not a preliminary o r interlocutory order. f i n a l f o r a l l purposes. I t was Thus, a n a p p e a l s h o u l d have been made by p e t i t i o n e r s a t t h a t t i m e . The f a c t t h a t t h e Board of H e a l t h ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n was n o t t h e f i n a l order i n p o i n t of t i m e i n t h e proceedings i s . . For ". n o t c o n c l u s i v e on t h e q u e s t i o n of a p p e a l a b i l i t y . p u r p o s e s of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w t h e f i n a l i t y o f a n agency o r d e r depends upon t h e n a t u r e of t h e o r d e r r a t h e r t h a n i t s c h r o - . nology i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e whole o f t h e agency p r o c e e d i n g s . ." Goodman v . P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission, (D.C. Cir. 1972), 467 F.2d 375, 377, c i t i n g F e d e r a l Power Comm'n v . Metrop o l i t a n Edison Co. 82 L.ed. ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 304 U.S. 375, 384, 58 S.Ct. 963, 1408. Goodman i n v o l v e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Washington, D.C. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission c o n c e r n i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r a r a t e increase. The h e a r i n g was b i f u r c a t e d i n t o two " p h a s e s . " In i t s Phase I o r d e r , t h e PSC e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f a i r r a t e o f r e t u r n a t 7.1 percent. The Power Company w a s t h e n o r d e r e d t o s u b m i t proposed s c h e d u l e s t o i n c r e a s e i t s r e v e n u e a c c o r d ingly. The PSC P h a s e I1 o r d e r was a n o r d e r e f f e c t u a t i n g t h e above d i r e c t i v e by a p p r o v i n g a s c h e d u l e of r a t e s . Goodman a p p e a l e d from t h e P h a s e I o r d e r and n o t t h e Phase I1 o r d e r . The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Phase I o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l o r d e r o r d e c i s i o n and t h a t Goodman w a s n o t a f f e c t e d u n t i l e n t r y of t h e Phase I1 o r d e r . The C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Appeals r e v e r s e d , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e P h a s e I o r d e r was a f i n a l o r d e r : ". . . I t s f i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s i n no s e n s e a f f e c t e d by t h e need f o r t h e l a t e r Phase I1 o r d e r a l l o c a t i n g t h e i n c r e a s e among t h e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of c u s t o m e r s . The i n c r e a s e i n r a t e s , and t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Comm i s s i o n upon t h e b a s i s of which t h e i n c r e a s e was a l l o w e d , w e r e i n no way l e f t f o r f u r t h e r d e c i s i o n by t h e Phase I1 o r d e r . "While i t i s t r u e t h a t i n o u r c a s e t h e r e was something e l s e f o r t h e Commission t o d o , t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e o v e r - a l l i n c r e a s e [Phase I ] was n o t c o n d i t i o n e d upon a n y t h i n g y e t t o be r e s o l v e d by t h e l a t e r o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g t a r i f f s c h e d u l e s . What remained t o be done w a s n o t concerned w i t h t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n rates which had been g r a n t e d - - t h e a c t i o n of t h e Commission which M r . Goodman took t o c o u r t . That a c t i o n ' w a s e x p e c t e d t o and d i d have l e g a l c o n s e q u e n c e s ' which were n o t m o d i f i e d nor i n t e n d e d t o b e modif i e d by t h e P h a s e I1 o r d e r which f o l l o w e d . [Citing cases.]" Goodman, 467 F.2d a t 377-78. A s w i t h t h e PSC P h a s e I o r d e r i n Goodman, t h e Board o f H e a l t h ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n w a s n o t c o n d i t i o n e d upon a n y t h i n g y e t t o b e r e s o l v e d by t h e l a t e r o r d e r o f t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources. The r e m a i n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s were n o t concerned w i t h a i r and w a t e r q u a l i t y c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The Board of H e a l t h o r d e r i n t h i s r e g a r d w3.d f i n a l and c o n c l u sive. The Board o f H e a l t h ' s a c t i o n "was e x p e c t e d t o and d i d have l e g a l consequences" which were n e i t h e r m o d i f i e d n o r i n t e n d e d t o be m o d i f i e d by t h e l a t e r o r d e r of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources. The Board of H e a l t h ' s o r d e r o f November 2 1 , 1975, marks t h e consummation of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s w i t h i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r agency. The Board of H e a l t h ' s d e c i s i o n was f i n a l f o r p u r p o s e s of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w and s h o u l d have been a p p e a l e d a t t h a t t i m e . "The p r i n c i p l e of f i n a l i t y i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law i s n o t , however, governed by t h e administ r a t i v e a g e n c y ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of i t s act i o n , b u t r a t h e r by a r e a l i s t i c a s s e s s m e n t of t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t of t h e o r d e r s o u g h t t o be reviewed. Hence, ' a f i n a l o r d e r need n o t necess a r i l y be t h e v e r y l a s t o r d e r ' i n a n agency proc e e d i n g , b u t r a t h e r , i s f i n a l f o r p u r p o s e s of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w when i t ' i m p o s e [ s ] a n o b l i g a t i o n , d e n [ i e s ] a r i g h t , o r f i x [ e s ] some l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p a s a consummation of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e F i d e l i t y Television, Inc. v. process.' F.C.C. (D.C. C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) , 5 0 2 F.2d 443, 448. . . ." W e f i n d t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h ' s o r d e r of November 2 1 , 1975, was f i n a l o n t h a t d a t e . An a p p e a l from t h a t o r d e r had t o b e f i l e d w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s t h e r e a f t e r p u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s o f t h e MAPA. No a p p e a l was t i m e l y f i l e d a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o review t h e order. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d a c c o r d i n g l y . I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s r u l e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e Board o f H e a l t h ' s o r d e r d a t e d November 2 1 , 1975, t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s become moot and need n o t n o r c a n b e d e c i d e d by u s : I s s u e No. 3 i n v o l v i n g t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e o f t h e Board o f H e a l t h t o c o n s i d e r s t a t e and f e d e r a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n s ; I s s u e No. 4 c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e Board o f H e a l t h make a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g c e r t a i n a i r and w a t e r s t a n d a r d s ; and I s s u e No. 6 which r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e c o n d i t i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t e i s s u e d by t h e Board o f H e a l t h . 1 I s s u e Nos. 1 0 , 1 and 1 2 i n v o l v e i s s u e s w h e r e i n r e s p o n - dents/cross-appellants contend t h e District Court e r r e d . I s s u e No. 1 0 q u e s t i o n s t h e d e n i a l by t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and t h e c o n c u r r e n c e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f respondents/cross-appellants' m o t i o n t o deny t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e o f f a u l t y c e r t i f i c a t i o n by t h e Board of Health. W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly concurred i n t h e d e n i a l o f t h e motion. On J a n u a r y 7 and 8 , 1976, respondents/cross-apellants f i l e d m o t i o n s t o t e r m i n a t e t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s o n t h e g r o u n d s of t h e a l l e g e d i n v a l i d i t y o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a c i l i t y by t h e Board o f ~ e a l t h . The Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s . Under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 70-810 (1)( h ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-20-301(2)(h) MCA, o f t h e S i t i n g A c t , t h e Board of H e a l t h i s r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y t o t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources ". . . t h a t t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i l l n o t v i o l a t e s t a t e and f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d s and implementation plans . . ." T h i s was on November 2 1 , 1975. done by t h e Board of H e a l t h The g r a n t was c a l l e d a " c o n d i t i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t e , " b u t t h a t q u a l i f i c a t i o n h a s no s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of t h i s i s s u e . The above s e c t i o n of t h e S i t i n g Act p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r t h a t t h e judgments of t h e Board of Health ". . . a r e c o n c l u s i v e on a l l q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of s t a t e and f e d e r a l a i r and water q u a l i t y standards." (Emphasis a d d e d . ) T h e r e f o r e , from a s t a t u t o r y s t a n d p o i n t a l o n e , t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources had no c h o i c e b u t t o l o o k upon t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n by t h e Board o f H e a l t h a s " c o n c l u s i v e " and deny t h e motions of r e s p o n d e n t s / cross-appellants. There i s a n even more c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n why t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources was j u s t i f i e d i n d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n s . The c e r t i f i c a t i o n and o r d e r of t h e Board of H e a l t h was d a t e d November 2 1 , 1975. W e h e l d under I s s u e No. 2 t h a t such c e r t i f i c a t i o n and o r d e r was a " f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e " and s u b j e c t t o mandatory j u d i c i a l r e v i e w w i t h i n t h i r t y days a f t e r i t s i s s u e . The motions of r e s p o n d e n t s / c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t s were n o t f i l e d u n t i l J a n u a r y 7 and 8 , 1976, w e l l beyond t h e t h i r t y - d a y p e r i o d f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , t h u s making t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n and o r d e r of t h e Board of H e a l t h doubly " c o n c l u s i v e " n o t o n l y upon t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources b u t a l s o upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The remedy a v a i l a b l e t o respondents/cross-appellants on t h i s i s s u e of c e r t i f i c a t i o n by t h e Board of H e a l t h w a s t o i n s t i t u t e j u d i c i a l review within t h e s t a t u t o r y thirty-day period. I s s u e No. 1 c o n c e r n s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s upholding 1 t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources t o r e q u i r e more e f f i c i e n t t e c h n o l o g y f o r t h e removal of SO2 a t t h e f a c i l i t y i n c o n s i d e r i n g minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m pact. T h i s i s s u e s o l e l y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s of f a c t t h o r o u g h l y reviewed by t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources b e f o r e making i t s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r s . appellants/cross-respondents I n t h e i r b r i e f s both and respondents/cross-appellants a r g u e a b o u t h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l m a t t e r s , which more p r o p e r l y should be presented before t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies. W e b e l i e v e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d t h e matter p r o p e r l y , and i t s r e a s o n s were a d e q u a t e l y s t a t e d a t pages 3 4 and 3 5 of i t s opinion: ". . . The d i s a g r e e m e n t seems t o a r i s e o v e r t h e a s s e r t i o n by a p p l i c a n t s t h a t BACT c a n be e q u a t e d t o t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e of t h e a r t o r t o minimum adverse environmental impact. P e t i t i o n e r s i n s i s t t h e l a t t e r sets a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d t h a t BACT and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e shows t h e p o l l u t i o n removal equipment proposed d o e s n o t m e e t t h a t s t a n dard. I n m o p i n i o n , t h e BACT, o r NSPS and PSD, y s t a n d a r d s a r e e m p i r i c a l and q u a n t i f i a b l e and a r e s e t o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h e EPA r e g u l a t i o n s . These s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e Department of H e a l t h , a s t h a t d e p a r t m e n t a t t e m p t e d t o do h e r e . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o whether v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i l l p r o v i d e minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t ( o r r e p r e s e n t t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e of t h e a r t ) i s a judgmental m a t t e r , r e q u i r i n g comparison, t h e weighing o f s e v e r a l f a c t o r s and t h e b a l a n c i n g of p r o s and cons. T h i s i s t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources. ( I n t h i s c a s e , Findi n g of F a c t # 7 9 o f t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources sets f o r t h some, o r a l l of t h e f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d . ) Here t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e prov i d e d by t h e w i t n e s s Brink shows c l e a r l y t h a t t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e of t h e a r t would p r o v i d e 9 0 % removal of SO2. The a p p l i c a n t p o i n t s o u t t h a t B r i n k ' s technology a p p l i e s t o a high s u l f u r c o a l i n s t a l l a t i o n w i t h a n open l o o p s e t t l i n g system. The proposed f a c i l i t y t a k e s a d v a n t a g e of low s u l p h u r c o a l and a c l o s e d l o o p s y s t e m t h a t would ' t r a d e o f f ' higher s u l f u r emission (purportedly w i t h i n NSPS and PSO s t a n d a r d s ) f o r m i n i m i z a t i o n Thus, t h e t y p e of p o l l u t i o n of w a t e r p o l l u t i o n . c o n t r o l equipment proposed by t h e a p p l i c a n t s approved by t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources may cont r i b u t e t o a t o t a l system t h a t p r o v i d e s minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t . Such a n e x p r e s s conclusion a s applied t o t h e p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l equipment would have been h e l p f u l ; b u t i t c a n b e f a i r l y i m p l i e d from t h e f i n d i n g s of b o t h Boards. I t c a n c e r t a i n l y b e deemed t o come under t h e a l l encompassing s t a t e m e n t i n F i n d i n g o f F a c t # 3 and C o n c l u s i o n o f Law # 4 o f t h e BNR c e r t i f i c a t i o n . I t seems t o m e t h e c o n c l u s i o n on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t of t h e c a s e h a s been a d e q u a t e l y s t a t e d and t h a t it i s n o t ' c l e a r l y erroneous', although it would have b e n e f i t e d from more s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t u a l findings t o support i t . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g on t h i s i s s u e was n o t i n error. I s s u e No. 1 2 r a i s e s t h e p o i n t a s t o whether t h e r e f u s a l by t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources t o a l l o w members t o r e v i e w f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n was a d e p r i v a t i o n o f respondents/cross-appellants' r i g h t s t o due p r o c e s s and a f u l l and f a i r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources. W e f i n d no such d e p r i v a t i o n . A review of t h e D i s t r i c t Court opinion i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t a c t u a l l y d i d n o t make any r u l i n g on t h i s p o i n t . And, a r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s / c r o s s a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. T h e r e f o r e , i t c a n n o t b e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l W e have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t we w i l l n o t t o t h i s Court. c o n s i d e r q u e s t i o n s of c l a i m e d e r r o r n o t p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d o r presented t o the t r i a l court. - Mont. , 579 P.2d 1225, 35 St.Rep. of Underwriters v. S t a t e , Etc. P.2d Hayes v . J.M.S. (1977), Const. (1978), 722; Mont. A s s ' n - Mont. - 563 , 577, 3 4 S t - R e p . 297; Kearns v . McIntyre C o n s t . Co. (1977) Mont. , 567 P.2d 433, 34 St.Rep. W e p o i n t o u t , however, 703. t h a t i n o u r o p i n i o n t h e r e was no d e p r i v a t i o n of r i g h t s o r even u n f a i r p r a c t i c e s i n t h e adopt i o n o f f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s by t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources. A r e a d i n g of t h e e n t i r e s e p a r a t e volume of t r a n s c r i p t r e g a r d i n g p r o c e d u r a l matters b e f o r e t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources d a t e d J u l y 2 2 , 1976, c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e s this. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r i o r t o t h e m e e t i n g of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources i n June 1976, e a c h board member p r e p a r e d h i s own s e t of f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , a f t e r which a v o t e was t a k e n a t t h e J u n e 1976 m e e t i n g " a s t o which r o u t e t h e y would c h o o s e . " Following t h e v o t e , t h e h e a r i n g s examiner was r e q u e s t e d by t h e Board t o p r e p a r e f i n d i n g s o f t h e m a j o r i t y , which had v o t e d t o approve t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . On J u l y 8 , 1976, two weeks p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l meeting of J u l y 22, 1976, a l e t t e r was s e n t t o e a c h b o a r d member w i t h a copy of t h e h e a r i n g s e x a m i n e r ' s proposed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , o p i n i o n , d e c i s i o n , o r d e r and recommendations. The h e a r i n g s examiner r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be n o t i f i e d o f any changes any member wanted made. The h e a r - i n g s examiner n o t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e some changes t o b e made s u c h a s s p e l l i n g and t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s , and some p r o v i s i o n s were changed. These f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e a d o p t e d by t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l comp a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' a c t i o n c o u l d n o t be h e l d t o be a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s , o r a d e p r i v a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s / cross-appellants' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o due p r o c e s s and a f u l l and f a i r h e a r i n g . I s s u e No. 5 i n v o l v e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources make a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e of ~ o s e b u dc o a l v e r s u s McKay c o a l and t h e mine-mouth v e r s u s l o a d - c e n t e r g e n e r a t i o n question. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t s t h e r e was ample t e s t i - mony o n b o t h p o i n t s b u t i n s i s t s t h e s t a t u t o r y f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t t h e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l m e e t t h e "minimum adverse environmental impact" t e s t of t h e S i t i n g Act, a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( l ) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 75-20-301(2) ( c ) MCA, m u s t b e accompanied by a " p r e c i s e and e x p l i c i t statement of t h e underlying f a c t s supporting t h e f i n d i n g s " a s p r o v i d e d u n d e r t h e t e r m s of t h e I~APA, s e c t i o n 82-4213, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 2-4-623 MCA. W e agree. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e Rosebud v e r s u s McKay c o a l p o i n t i n t h i s i s s u e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s d i d n o t make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e u s e o f o n l y Rosebud c o a l , w i t h o u t t h e u s e o f a n y McKay c o a l , r e p r e s e n t e d t h e minimum e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t . The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h e r e a r e e x t e n s i v e McKay c o a l d e p o s i t s i n t h e same a r e a a s t h e Rosebud c o a l d e p o s i t s . The u s e o f o n e c o a l seam t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e o t h e r could, of c o u r s e , r e s u l t i n a n i n c r e a s e d e f f e c t o f t h e i m p a c t o f s t r i p m i n i n g and r e c l a m a t i o n . The l a c k o f a n y s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s i n t h i s d i s p u t e d f a c t u a l a r e a , d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g t h e environmental impact of t h e f a c i l i t y , w a s e r r o r o n t h e p a r t o f t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y h e l d t h a t a c o n c i s e and e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t of t h e underlying f i n d i n g s of f a c t w a s necessary t o support t h e ultimate conclusion. gardi ding t h e s e c o n d p o i n t i n t h i s i s s u e , t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s b e r e q u i r e d t o make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law with regard to: " ( b ) Whether mine-mouth g e n e r a t i o n a s opposed t o l o a d c e n t e r g e n e r a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s minimum e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t , and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , i n c l u d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as t o r e l a t i v e e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y and t h e r e l a t i v e impact o f e l e c t r i c a l transmission v e r s u s c o a l h a u l a g e , b o t h a s r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( l ) ( c ) . " AppelLantd/cross-respondents m a i n t a i n t h a t o n l y u l t i m a t e f a c t u a l c o n c l u s i o n s need b e drawn by t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources and underlying s u p p o r t i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t are n o t required. Such a p o s i t i o n i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e re- q u i r e m e n t s o f MAPA. s e c t i o n 2-4-623 S e c t i o n 82-4213, R.C.M. 1947, now MCA. The i s s u e i s p r i m a r i l y o n e o f w h e t h e r c l e a r - c u t a l t e r n a t i v e s i n t h e e v i d e n c e need b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e f i n d i n g s by t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s i n r e a c h i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l m e e t t h e minimum a d v e r s e environmental impact. The Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s made no f i n d i n g s , f o r example, a s t o w h e t h e r t h e economic d e t r i ment, i f a n y , i n t e r m s o f d e p r e c i a t e d l a n d v a l u e s and e f f e c t o n b u s i n e s s a n d commerce, c a u s e d by t h e t a k i n g o f 430 m i l e s o f double right-of-way a c r o s s t h e S t a t e o f Montana v e r s u s t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of e x i s t i n g r a i l r o a d right-of-way satisfied t h e minimum i m p a c t t e s t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l i n g t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s b e r e q u i r e d t o make f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e " n a t u r e and economics o f t h e v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s , " a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( 1 ) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7 5 - 2 0 - 3 0 1 ( 2 ) ( c ) MCA, was p r o p e r and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a p p l i c a b l e law. Issue No. 7 questions t h e D i s t r i c t Court's requirement t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s make a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e s i t i n g and t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e corridor. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s made i n a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l criteria and the identification and designation of the transmission line corridor as required by the I I P in IAA section 82-4313, R.C.M. 1947, now section 2-4-623 MCA. The transmission line, as a part of the facilities, calls for the location of approximately 430 miles of rightof-way for two 500 k.v. transmission lines from Colstrip to the western boundary of the state. The District Court held that the Board of Natural Resources was required to "clearly designate a transmission line corridor, make findings of fact as to why the Board preferred the chosen corridor to the alternative corridors, and conclusions of law as to what state and local legal requirements must be met, and whether they have in fact been met, in accordance with Section 70-810(1)(f)." We concur. Appellants/cross-respondents point out the apparent inconsistency of the District Court's opinion wherein the court refused to consider the lack of findings as to the environmental impact of the alternative corridor segments, and its final ruling set forth above. Although the opinion could be clearer in this regard, it is apparent that the District Court rejected respondents/cross-appellants' argument on the issue of minimum adverse environmental impact as to the alternative corridors. However, the District Court refused to affirm the granting of a certificate by the Board of Natural Resources, without some actual identification of the corridors subject to approval. With respect to the transmission facilities, appellants/ cross-respondents' Exhibit 92 sets forth a number of alternative segments which, in combination, could make up possibly five or six different routings, rather than 54 alternative routes as suggested by appellants/cross-respondents. ~lso, respondents/cross-appellants s u b m i t t e d proposed f i n d i n g s on t h e p r e f e r a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e c o r r i d o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e --- u s e of e x i s t i n g r a i l r o a d r i g h t of way o v e r t h e r o u t e s proposed by appellants/cross-respondents. F i n d i n g s N.P.R.C. 115. #13-16, 32, 34-36, BNR Proposed 66-69, 104-105, 108, DNRC #814-820. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t t o u c h i n g on t h i s i s s u e were conc l u s o r y i n n a t u r e and p r e s e n t e d no b a s i s o r u n d e r l y i n g supporting f a c t s f o r t h e conclusion reached. N a t u r a l Resources F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 48. See Board o f Furthermore, i n a s u b s e q u e n t f i n d i n g , No. 74, t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources found t h a t f u r t h e r m e t e o r o l o g i c a l d a t a w a s n e c e s s a r y f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a f i n a l s e l e c t i o n of -e "proposed c o r r i d o r . " - th (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The c o n c l u s i o n s of law go no f u r t h e r t h a n t o make a r e f e r e n c e i n one of t h e c o n d i t i o n s t o a "proposed c o r r i d o r . " Board of N a t u r a l Resources C o n c l u s i o n o f Law No. 1 2 (L) ( 3 ) . A s s t a t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t r a n s mission f a c i l i t i e s are t o t a l l y conclusory i n n a t u r e with respect t o t h e i r location. Furthermore, they f a i l t o a c t u a l l y r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a t r a n s m i s s i o n r o u t e h a s been located. T h i s i s , of c o u r s e , t h e fundamental p u r p o s e of t h e e n t i r e agency p r o c e s s . s e c t i o n 2-4-623 S e c t i o n 82-4213, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : R.C.M. 1947, now ". . . Each conclu- s i o n of law s h a l l b e s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r by a r e a s o n e d opinion. " ~ppellants/cross-respondents a l l u d e t o c i t a t i o n s of t h e r e c o r d t o s a t i s f y t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t - f i n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e ment t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n conform t o s t a t e and l o c a l laws and r e g u l a t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 70-810 (1) f ) ( R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301(2) (b) M C A ) . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y h e l d t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w s d e t e r m i n e d t o b e comp l i e d w i t h was n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t C o n c l u s i o n o f Law No. 8 . The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t i n t h i s i n s t a n c e c o u l d n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s C judgment f o r t h e a g e n c y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f any d e f i n i t i v e d e c i s i o n by t h e a g e n c y . ~ppellants/cross-respondents' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t r e f e r e n c e s i n the findings t o t h e f a c t t h a t the transmission l i n e s would b e l o c a t e d t o a v o i d p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s a s much a s p o s s i b l e , w i t h o u t e v e n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f what p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s w e r e involved, t h e e f f e c t of t h e impact, o r t h e corresponding b e n e f i t s , i f any, does n o t s a t i s f y t h e f a c t f i n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s . F i n a l l y , s u b s e q u e n t a p p r o v a l o f a segment of c e n t e r l i n e h a s no b e a r i n g o n t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e Board o f N a t u r a l Resources w i t h r e s p e c t t o l o c a t i o n of a c o r r i d o r . The f a c t t h a t members o f t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s may s u b s e quently i d e n t i f y a c e n t e r l i n e l o c a t i o n does n o t a i d t h e i n c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' d e t e r m i n a t i o n with regard t o a corridor location. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y found t h a t s o m e t h i n g more t h a n c o n c l u s o r y f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f law was necessary t o meet t h e requirements of t h e S i t i n g Act w i t h r e s p e c t t o l o c a t i o n of transmission l i n e f a c i l i t i e s , espec i a l l y o f t h e m a g n i t u d e s o u g h t by appellants/cross-respondents. W e now t u r n t o I s s u e No. 8 concerning t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g a s t o w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Board o f N a t u r a l ~ e s o u r c e s ' f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t , The p a r t i e s i n t h i s m a t t e r p h r a s e d t h i s i s s u e a s t o whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h e r e w a s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of minimum a d v e r s e environmental impact. A c a r e f u l r e a d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t such a s t a t e m e n t of t h e i s s u e i s not correct. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s d e c i s i o n on t h i s i s s u e set f o r t h nine d i f f e r e n t headings. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t on a l l t h e h e a d i n g s e x c e p t p o s s i b l y number 8 r u l e d i n f a v o r of t h e u t i l i t i e s . I t found t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e proposed f a c i l i t y r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t . Concerning number 8 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i dence b u t t h e n b e c l o u d s t h e i s s u e by a d d i n g , a l m o s t p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , t h a t t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources d i d n o t s u p p o r t i t s u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n w i t h any f i n d i n g s a s t o underlying f a c t s . W f i n d t h a t t h e language concerning e supporting ultimate f a c t s i s surplusage a s f a r a s t h i s i s s u e i s concerned. W a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and f i n d e t h a t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e record t o s u p p o r t t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e proposed f a c i l i t y r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact. The f i n a l i s s u e f o r t h i s C o u r t t o d e c i d e and p r o b a b l y t h e most f a r - r e a c h i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law i n t h i s s t a t e , i s I s s u e No. 1--whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources must p r o v i d e respondents/cross-appellants t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s examine w i t n e s s e s o f t h e Department of H e a l t h and t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources i n t h e h e a r i n g s b e f o r e e a c h ~ o a r d . The ~ i s t r i c C o u r t i n i t s d e c i s i o n and o r d e r h e l d t h a t t t h e h e a r i n g s examiner e r r e d i n r u l i n g t h a t p a r t i e s o p p o s i n g t h e u t i l i t i e s ' a p p l i c a t i o n c o u l d n o t cross-examine w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r p a r t y opponents i n b o t h t h e Board of H e a l t h and Board of N a t u r a l Resources h e a r i n g s . W disagree. e To f u l l y comprehend t h e n a t u r e and r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l i n g , we examine t h e background of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s p r i o r t o t h e ruling. A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e r e c o r d and t h e b r i e f s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e main p a r t i e s i n t h e two h e a r i n g s becomes obvious e a r l y . On t h e one s i d e were t h e p r o p o n e n t s con- s i s t i n g of t h e u t i l i t i e s a s applicants. On t h e o t h e r s i d e were t h e o p p o n e n t s t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l , N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e , I n c . , the Department of N a t u r a l Resources and t h e Department of H e a l t h . Each of t h e above o p p o n e n t s was r e p r e s e n t e d by s e p a r a t e counsel. With i n t e r e s t w e n o t e t h a t when i t came t i m e t o s u b m i t t o t h e Board o f H e a l t h proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, a s w e l l a s comments on t h e u t i l i t i e s ' proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and f i n a l memoranda, t h e f o u r main opponents s u b m i t t e d j o i n t p l e a d ings--not s e p a r a t e o n e s , e a c h p l e a d i n g b e i n g s i g n e d by t h e f o u r s e p a r a t e c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g e a c h main opponent. In f a c t , t h e t i t l e of each pleading d e s i g n a t e s t h e f o u r p a r t i e s a s "opponents" t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Any a t t e m p t t o c a s t d o u b t upon t h e d i v i s i o n of p a r t i e s i n t o d i s t i n c t p r o p o n e n t s and opponents, a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a t t e m p t e d t o do i n i t s o p i n i o n and o r d e r of March 3 , 1978, i s w i t h o u t , m e r i t . N one involved i n t h e proceedings expected an e a r l y o c o n c l u s i o n , y e t i t soon became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s c o u l d l a s t f o r months u n l e s s s t e p s w e r e t a k e n t o s h o r t e n t h e hearings, For example, t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d a v e r a g e d over f i v e days of testimony each, i n c l u d i n g e x t e n s i v e c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n by a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e f o u r main o p p o n e n t s t o t h e application. Extended d i s c u s s i o n s among t h e a t t o r n e y s and t h e h e a r i n g s examiner ensued i n a n e f f o r t t o b r e a k t h e impasse. The a p p r e h e n s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g s examiner became more n o t i c e a b l e a s t h e proceedings progressed. Thus, e a r l y i n t h e h e a r i n g s he n o t e d t h a t t h e Board of H e a l t h p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e i n t h e second week and t h e second w i t n e s s was s t i l l on t h e stand. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e second month of h e a r i n g s , f o u r w i t n e s s e s had n o t y e t been completed. F i n a l l y , t h e h e a r i n g s examiner r u l e d t h a t a l l w i t n e s s e s would t h e r e a f t e r p r e s e n t t h e i r t e s t i m o n y i n w r i t i n g , and t h a t t h e opponents t o any w i t n e s s would have s i x h o u r s of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t i m e , d i v i d e d among them a s t h e y m i g h t agree. The h e a r i n g s examiner f u r t h e r r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o p e r m i t a d d i t i o n a l c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i f i t was m a t e r i a l and i f without i t p r e j u d i c e might occur. A l i m i t a t i o n was a l s o p l a c e d upon r e d i r e c t and r e c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n s . Approximately a month l a t e r , and a f t e r t h e u t i l i t i e s had r e s t e d t h e i r c a s e - i n - c h i e f , o b j e c t i o n s were made by t h e o p p o n e n t s t o n o t b e i n g a l l o w e d t o cross-examine w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r o p p o n e n t s . A t t h a t time, t h e hearings examiner r u l e d t h a t no p a r t y opposing t h e a p p l i c a t i o n would b e a l l o w e d t o cross-examine w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t e d by any o t h e r p a r t y opponent. However, t h e r e was a t l e a s t one e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e e x p r e s s e d a t t h e t i m e , and f o l l o w e d t h e r e a f t e r , i n t h a t c o u n s e l f o r N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l was a l l o w e d t o cross-examine Department o f H e a l t h w i t n e s s e s a s t o t h e w a t e r a s p e c t s o f t h e c a s e b e c a u s e t h e Department had i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t c o u l d c e r t i f y t h a t t h e p r o j e c t would meet a l l a p p l i c a b l e s t a t e and f e d e r a l w a t e r s t a n d a r d s . With t h i s p o s i t i o n , Northern P l a i n s d i d n o t agree. The comments o f t h e h e a r i n g s examiner on t h i s s u b j e c t a r e most i l l u m i n a t i n g , i n c l u d i n g h i s comments a s t o who opposed t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . I n response t o a question a s t o whether o r n o t t h e c h a i r had r u l e d t h a t t h e N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource C o u n c i l c o u l d n o t cross-examine a Department of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ' w i t n e s s , t h e h e a r i n g s examiner s t a t e d : "HEARINGS EXAMINER: T h a t ' s c o r r e c t , e x c e p t on I t ' s m understanding y m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o water. a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h i s t h i n g , w e l i n e up on two s i d e s , p r o p o n e n t s and opponents. NOW, t h e r e was some c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t you w e r e n ' t l i n e d up t h a t way, b u t t h e c h a i r , t h e H e a r i n g s Examiner, h a s observed throughout t h e s e proceedings t h a t a l l t h e a t t o r n e y s from t h e o p p o n e n t s ' s i d e have been i n and o u t o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e room, s h a r i n g e x h i b i t s , p a s s i n g n o t e s , c o n f e r r i n g between examinat i o n s , and i f t h e r e ' s a q u e s t i o n o n e f o r g o t t o a s k , h e c o n f e r s and t h e n e x t guy a s k s i t , and I ' v e n e v e r h e a r d of a p r o c e e d i n g where you t a k e t h e s i d e of a n opponent t o a n a p p l i c a t i o n and you cross-examine t h e o t h e r o p p o n e n t ' s w i t n e s s e s . " Could t h e h e a r i n g s examiner have made i t any c l e a r e r a s t o t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e p a r t i e s ? W e think not. J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e r u l e was s t a t e d by t h e h e a r i n g s examiner a s f o l l o w s : . . . "HEARINGS EXAMINER: I t seems t o m e t h a t t h e o n l y p e r s o n who h a s t h e r i g h t t o cross-examine i s t h e p e r s o n who i s on t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e . I think t h a t ' s t h e function of cross-examination. I f it w e r e n ' t t h a t way, t h i s new r u l e w e made c o u l d b e v e r y n i c e l y abused. I n o t h e r words, t h e Applic a n t s t a k e two h o u r s on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s , on t h e o t h e r s i d e , we go back on t h e merry-go-round we've been on. Y o u ' l l have a n a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u t i n your c l i e n t ' s c a s e i n f u l l , w i t h a s many w i t n e s s e s a s you c h o o s e , and s t a t e your p o s i t i o n v e r y f i r m l y , and t h e y ' l l have a r i g h t t o cross-examine your w i t n e s s e s . I d o n ' t c o n t e m p l a t e g r a n t i n g t h e DNR t h e r i g h t not t o cross-examine your w i t n e s s e s when t h e y ' r e i n - adverse position -an t o them. That's not cross-examination. I t can be c a l l e d c r o s s , b u t i t can, i n e f f e c t , be r e d i r e c t , unless t h e r e ' s some p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e -a-you - - - p u t o n t h t - want t o t h e r e c o r d , - you h a v e o p p o s i t e i s s u e a s f a r t h a t -as - granting t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s concernedx-then, I e - t h i n k y o u '-d-b- - o a t h a t c o u l d l e g a l l y b e c a l l e d c r o s s , b u t j u s t t o encumber t h e r e c o r d and s a y , ' I want t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h i s w i t n e s s , ' a n d t h e n g o a h e a d and t r y t o s u p p o r t t h e w i t n e s s , I see where t h e r e c o u l d b e a g r e a t d e a l o f a b u s e and u n f a i r n e s s i n t h a t . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) The h e a r i n g s e x a m i n e r i n t h e f o r e g o i n g q u o t a t i o n l e f t t h e d o o r a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y open a s t o o p p o n e n t s c r o s s examining o t h e r o p p o n e n t s ' w i t n e s s e s when a n " o p p o s i t e i s s u e " was i n v o l v e d , and h e f u r t h e r expounded upon t h i s later. H i s answer t o a q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r h e would p e r m i t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by a n o p p o n e n t o f a n o t h e r o p p o n e n t ' s w i t n e s s i f t h e y f i r s t s t a t e d t h e a r e a s i n which t h e y d i s a g r e e d was t h a t h e would n o t s a y t h a t h e would p e r m i t i t b u t h e would l i s t e n and see w h e t h e r t h e r e was i n d e e d a v a l i d issue. I t should be noted t h a t t h e r e a f t e r opponents' counsel r a r e l y r e q u e s t e d f u r t h e r permission t o cross-examine w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r o p p o n e n t s . I n no c a s e i s i t a p p a r e n t t h a t counsel e v e r informed t h e h e a r i n g s examiner t h a t t h e y w e r e opposed t o a c e r t a i n w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y upon a n y p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t , nor d i d they ever r e q u e s t permission t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e a n o p p o n e n t ' s w i t n e s s o n a n y p a r t i c u l a r subject. I n s t e a d , t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s were g e n e r a l o n l y , b a s e d m a i n l y on MAPA a n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . I f t h e f l o o d g a t e s had been opened by t h e h e a r i n g s examiner i n a l l o w i n g u n l i m i t e d c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , it could have r e s u l t e d i n a n a v a l a n c h e of t e s t i m o n y , making t h e p r e s e n t 1 7 , 0 0 0 p a g e t r a n s c r i p t l o o k l i k e a summary o r condensation. P u b l i c w i t n e s s e s by t h e d o z e n s t u r n e d o u t t o t e s t i f y b o t h a g a i n s t and i n f a v o r o f t h e u n i t s . s e c t i o n 70-808(1) ( c ) , R.C.M. Under 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20- 361 (1)( c ) MCA, of t h e S i t i n g A c t , "any o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n " i s a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g a l t h o u g h he waives h i s r i g h t under s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) i f he d o e s n o t p a r t i c i p a t e o r a l l y a t t h e hearing. Any of t h e s e " p a r t i e s " who t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g m i g h t w e l l have i n s i s t e d upon t h e i r r i g h t a s a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g t o cross-examine a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s , somet h i n g t h a t was n o t l o s t upon t h e h e a r i n g s examiner a s r e v e a l e d i n h i s v a r i o u s comments. W e f i n d t h e hearings examiner was l i t e r a l l y f o r c e d t o i n s t i t u t e a r u l i n g r e s t r i c t i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s , and t h i s h e d i d w i t h f a i r n e s s and d i s p a t c h . I n s p i t e o f t h e background of t h e h e a r i n g s and t h e n e c e s s i t y t o r e s t r i c t e x a m i n a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t a t l e a s t t h e o p p o n e n t - p e t i t i o n e r s below had t h e a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o "cross-examine" w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r opponents, Department of H e a l t h and Department of N a t u r a l Resources. Having p r o v i d e d t h e background, o u r a t t e n t i o n i s n e x t d i r e c t e d t o t h e s t a t u t e s and c a s e law. S e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 0 9 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20- 2 2 2 ( 3 ) MCA, of t h e S i t i n g Act p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : ". . . t h e c o n t e s t e d c a s e p r o c e d u r e s of t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t [82-401 t o 82-42251 s h a l l a p p l y t o t h e h e a r i n g , e x c e p t t h a t n e i t h e r common l a w n o r s t a t u t o r y r u l e s of e v i dence need a p p l y , b u t t h e b o a r d may make r u l e s designed t o exclude r e p e t i t i v e , redundant o r i r r e l e v a n t testimony." S e c t i o n 82-4210, and 2-4-612(5) MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 2-4-612(2) of t h e MAPA p r o v i d e s : " (1) Except a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e rel a t i n g d i r e c t l y t o a n agency, a g e n c i e s s h a l l b e bound by common law and s t a t u t o r y r u l e s of e v i dence. .. " ( 3 ) A p a r t y s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o c o n d u c t f - a u c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n s r e q u i r e d -o r - -f- l l and t r u e disclosure of f a c t s , including the r i g h t t o cross-examine t h e a u t h o r o f any document p r e p a r e d by o r on b e h a l f of o r f o r t h e u s e of t h e agency and o f f e r e d i n e v i d e n c e . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) I t should be noted t h a t s e c t i o n 556(d) of t h e Federal 8556 ( d ) ) i s a l m o s t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t ( 5 U.S.C.A. i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f i r s t p a r t of s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) above i n p r o v i d i n g t h a t "A p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o . . . conduct such c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a s may b e r e q u i r e d f o r a f u l l and t r u e d i s c l o s u r e of t h e f a c t s . " The p r o v i s i o n f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s of agency documents o f f e r e d i n e v i d e n c e found i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t of s e c t i o n 82-4210(3) i s n o t found i n t h e F e d e r a l A d m i n s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t nor i n t h e Model S t a t e Administ r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act. R a t h e r , t h e p r o v i s i o n was f i r s t proposed i n Montana i n 1959 i n a proposed A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t which t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t p a s s . (Senate B i l l 179.) S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e M P p a s s e d i n 1971 AA preserved t h i s language. Both p r o p o s a l s w e r e made a t t i m e s when t h e c o u r t s w e r e concerned w i t h t h e u n f a i r n e s s t h a t would b e f a l l c l a i m a n t s f o r r i g h t s o r p r i v i l e g e s from governm e n t a l a g e n c i e s i f t h e c l a i m a n t s d i d n o t have t h e opport u n i t y t o c h a l l e n g e t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s of c r i t i c a l r e p o r t s prepared f o r t h e agencies. U.S. 474, 79 S . C t . Greene v . McElroy ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 360 1400, 3 L Ed 2d 1377; Cedar Rapids S t e e l Transp. v . Iowa S t a t e Corn. Comm'n (Iowa 1 9 6 8 ) , 160 N.W.2d 825; A p p l i c a t i o n of P l a i n f i e l d - W a t e r Co. 382, 94 A . 2 d 673. ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 N.J. 1 W f i n d t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e f o r e e going provision i n our s t a t u t e regarding t h e r i g h t t o crossexamine t h e a u t h o r o f agency documents was merely a s a f e g u a r d t o make c e r t a i n t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g c a s e law w a s r e c o g - n i z e d by s t a t u t e . I t s i n c l u s i o n does n o t broaden t h e scope o f t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s t a t u t e , and i t s h o u l d n o t b e cons t r u e d as a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y b u t r a t h e r w i t h t h e s t a t u t e a s a whole. A l t h o u g h t h e LAPA d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , r e s o r t i n t h i s r e g a r d c a n b e made t o s e c t i o n 93-1901-4, 1947, now s e c t i o n 26-1-101(1) R.C.M. MCA, which provides i n part: " D i r e c t and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n d e f i n e d . The e x a m i n a t i o n o f a w i t n e s s by t h e p a r t y p r o d u c i n g him i s denominated t h e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n ; t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e same w i t n e s s , upon t h e same m a t t e r , - -e a d v e r s e p a r t y , t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a by t h tion (Emphasis a d d e d . ) . . ." I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e t e r m " a d v e r s e p a r t y " was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t a t u t e f o r any o t h e r r e a s o n b u t t o narrow t h e scope of cross-examination t o t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y . The Montana Supreme C o u r t , l i k e t h e c o u r t s of o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s and t h e t e x t s , i n e n u n c i a t i n g t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t cross-examination i s a matter of r i g h t , l i m i t s such cross-examination t o w i t n e s s e s of t h e opposing p a r t y o r adverse party. McGonigle v . P r u d e n t i a l I n s . Co. o f America ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 0 0 Mont. 397 U.S. 203, 46 P.2d 687; G o l d b e r g v . K e l l y ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 254, 90 S . C t . 1 0 1 1 , 25 L Ed 2d 287; 98 C.J.S. W i t n e s s e s S368; 8 1 Am J u r 2d, W i t n e s s e s , 8464. The r i g h t t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o a n o t h e r limitation. The l a t i t u d e o f s u c h e x a m i n a t i o n i s l a r g e l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w i t h which t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t w i l l n o t i n t e r f e r e u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a m a n i f e s t abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . McGonigle v . P r u d e n t i a l I n s . Co. o f America, s u p r a ; S t a t e v . C a r n s ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 136 Mont. 1 2 6 , 345 P.2d 735. R.C.M. I n t h i s connection, s e c t i o n 82-4211(2), 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 2-4-611(2) MCA, provides t h a t h e a r i n g s examiners s h a l l b e a u t h o r i z e d t o " r e g u l a t e t h e c o u r s e of h e a r i n g s . " The F e d e r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act i s a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e Montana p r o v i s i o n i n p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e p r e s i d i n g p a r t y may " r e g u l a t e t h e c o u r s e o f t h e hearing." 5 U.S.C.A. S556(c) ( 5 ) . W e f i n d i n view of t h e s t a t u t e s and c a s e law t h a t t h e r e i s r e a l l y no d i s t i n c t i o n between a c o u r t t r i a l and a cont e s t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceeding i n s o f a r a s t h e r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t o r h e a r i n g s examiner a r e concerned. Should t h e r e b e one r u l e f o r c i v i l c a s e s and a n o t h e r r u l e f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings? W think not. e I t would b e d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d a c a s e more i n p o i n t t h a n N a t i o n a l N u t r i t i o n a l Foods A s s l n v . Food Cir. & Drug Admin. 19741, 504 F.2d 761, c e r t . d e n i e d 4 2 0 U.S. 946. (2nd Be- c a u s e N a t i o n a l N u t r i t i o n a l i s s o c l o s e t o t h i s c a s e , more s p a c e w i l l b e d e v o t e d t o i t t h a n o r d i n a r i l y done. The c a s e i n v o l v e d t h e r e v i e w o f two f i n a l r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Food & Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (FDA). During t h e p r e s e n - t a t i o n of t h e F D A ' s c a s e , a l l p a r t i e s were p e r m i t t e d l i b e r a l cross-examination pursuant t o t h e hearings examiner's pret r i a l o r d e r which p r o v i d e d f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by any p a r t i c i p a n t d e s i r i n g t o do s o . The C o u r t of A p p e a l s , Judge F r i e n d l y w r i t i n g f o r t h e c o u r t , wryly n o t e d t h a t s o l i b e r a l a r u l e n o t u n e x p e c t e d l y had i t s c o s t . A f t e r t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e F A began t o o f f e r i t s D e v i d e n c e , a l m o s t 18 months a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g commenced, t h e h e a r i n g s examiner d e c i d e d t o l i m i t t h e r i g h t s of p a r t i c i p a n t s t o cross-examine t h e w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . I n a n o r d e r t h e h e a r i n g s examiner d i v i d e d t h e 2 a r t i e s i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s - - j u s t a s was done i n t h i s case--with the F A D on one s i d e and a l l o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s on t h e o t h e r . I f any p a r t i c i p a n t wished t o cross-examine t h e w i t n e s s of a n o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t , h e was t o s e r v e a n o t i c e of i n t e n t i o n t o do s o . The n o t i c e had t o s t a t e t h a t t h e w r i t t e n d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s was a d v e r s e t o t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t , make s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a d v e r s e , and s t a t e t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r . The h e a r i n g s examiner would t h e n d e t e r m i n e whether t o g r a n t p e r m i s s i o n t o cross-examine i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n . The d e c i s i o n of t h e C o u r t of Appeals approved t h e l i m i t a t i o n on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of c o p a r t i c i p a n t s ' w i t n e s s e s where no a d v e r s i t y e x i s t e d between them; however, t h e c o u r t d i d f i n d t h a t i n t h e c a s e of one p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t w i t n e s s c a l l e d by t h e American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n ( D r . S e b r e l l ) , t h e h e a r i n g s examiner had i n c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t no a d v e r s i t y e x i s t e d between t h e AMA and t h e N a t i o n a l Health Federation. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c o u r t remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e FDA f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e of p e r m i t t i n g r e a s o n a b l e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f D r . S e b r e l l by t h e N F o r c o u n s e l of H some o t h e r s i m i l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i c i p a n t . I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g s examiner had made h i s r u l i n g t h a t D r . S e b r e l l c o u l d n o t b e cross-examined by t h e N F even though i t was e x p l a i n e d t o him a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e H i n t e r e s t s of t h e N F and AMA were o p p o s i t e r a t h e r t h a n H identical. I n commenting upon t h i s a d v e r s i t y , t h e c o u r t n o t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n s c l e a r l y d i d n o t have "common i n t e r e s t s " and t h a t t h e N F was s u b s t a n H t i a l l y a s a d v e r s e t o t h e AMA a s i t was t o t h e FDA. J u d g e F r i e n d l y p r e d i c a t e d t h e r u l i n g upon s u b s e c t i o n ( d ) o f 5 5 5 6 o f t h e F e d e r a l ~ d m i n i s t r a t i v eP r o c e d u r e Act which p r o v i d e s , a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l l y t o s e c t i o n 82-4210(3) I R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-612(5) MCA, t h a t a p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o c o n d u c t such c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a s may b e r e q u i r e d f o r a f u l l and t r u e d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e f a c t s . The c o u r t pointed o u t t h a t t h e foregoing provision does not confer a r i g h t of s o - c a l l e d " u n l i m i t e d " c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and t h a t p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r s w i l l have t o make t h e n e c e s s a r y i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n where t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s p r e s s e d t o unreasonable lengths. The c o u r t f u r t h e r r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a h e a r i n g s examiner must b e a l l o w e d , i n d e e d encouraged, t o t a k e s t e p s t o a v o i d r e p e t i t i o u s o r aimless cross-examination, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a p r o c e e d i n g which h a s become s o g a r g a n t u a n a s t h e one b e f o r e it. Of more t h a n p a s s i n g i n t e r e s t i s t h e c o u r t ' s t e r s e comment on t h e p o i n t which most t r i a l l a w y e r s have l e a r n e d through sad experience--that e a r l y dreams o f confounding e x p e r t s by c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n u s u a l l y a r e dreams i n d e e d . The c o u r t wonders how much more t h e r e would have been f o r t h e agency t o l e a r n b u t t h a t D r . S e b r e l l was no o r d i n a r y w i t n e s s and i n f a c t p l a y e d a key p a r t i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e regulation. One of t h e most c o g e n t s t a t e m e n t s by Judge F r i e n d l y i n National N u t r i t i o n a l i s t h e following: ". . . I n t h e a b s e n c e of a showing of p r e j u d i c e , p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h common i n t e r e s t s s h o u l d b e grouped by t h e h e a r i n g examiner, and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a group should n o t be permitted t o cross-examine w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d by o t h e r members of t h e group." 5 0 4 F.2d a t 7 9 5 . W can i d e n t i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n involving D r . S e b r e l l , e t h e key w i t n e s s i n v o l v e d i n N a t i o n a l N u t r i t i o n a l , w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e where N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource Counc i l w a s opposed t o t h e Department of H e a l t h on w a t e r i s s u e s . I n t h a t c a s e t h e m a t t e r was remanded f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of D r . S e b r e l l ; i n t h i s c a s e N o r t h e r n P l a i n s Resource Counc i l was a l l o w e d t o cross-examine t h e Department of H e a l t h w i t n e s s e s b e c a u s e of t h e a d v e r s i t y of i n t e r e s t . I t i s t r u e t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e p r o c e d u r e was n o t a s s t r u c t u r e d a s i n National Nutritional. On t h e o t h e r hand, o n a t l e a s t two o c c a s i o n s t h e h e a r i n g s examiner h e r e p o i n t e d o u t t o counsel t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of opening cross-examination i n t h e e v e n t of a v a l i d a d v e r s e i s s u e . H e d i d i n f a c t allow c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e w a t e r i s s u e s , where a n a d v e r s e position existed. T h i s s h o u l d have been p r o o f enough t h a t , upon a p r o p e r showing of a d v e r s i t y , f u r t h e r cross-examinat i o n would b e a l l o w e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , none of t h e c o u n s e l f o r t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s , o t h e r t h a n on w a t e r i s s u e s , e v e r p o i n t e d o u t i n what r e s p e c t h i s c l i e n t was i n o p p o s i t i o n t o a n o t h e r opponent. On t h e c o n t r a r y a l l t h a t was e v e r done was t o i n t e r p o s e g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n s , and when g i v e n t h e s p e c i f i c o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l a i n t h e s u b j e c t s where a d v e r s i t y e x i s t e d , opposing c o u n s e l d i d n o t d o s o . The f e d e r a l c o u r t s have i n many i n s t a n c e s upheld r u l i n g s i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s which d e n i e d c o m p l e t e l y c r o s s examination. Thus i n F r i e d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s (S.D. N . Y . 1 9 6 3 ) , 212 F.Supp. 886, p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d d e n i a l of due p r o c e s s of l a w b e c a u s e t h e h e a r i n g s examiner c u r t a i l e d c o m p l e t e l y t h e i r r i g h t t o cross-examine a n a l l e g e d l y c r u c i a l w i t n e s s b u t t h e c o u r t upheld t h e r u l i n g i n view of t h e c u m u l a t i v e n a t u r e of t h e w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y . And i n ~ m e r i - c a n P u b l i c Gas A s s ' n v . F e d e r a l Power Cornm'n. (D.C. cir. 1 9 7 4 ) , 498 F.2d 718, a l l d a t a upon which t h e commission r e l i e d was t e n d e r e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s f o r comment, c r i t i cism and f o r t h e s u b m i t t a l of r e b u t t i n g m a t e r i a l . ~ e t i - t i o n e r s complained t h a t t h e y were d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o t e s t t h r o u g h c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h e u n d e r l y i n g b a s e s f o r t h e submitted d a t a but t h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e claim i n holding t h a t under t h e F e d e r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n i s n o t always a r i g h t and t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s had f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n w a s r e q u i r e d f o r a " f u l l and t r u e d i s c l o s u r e of t h e f a c t s " under t h e Act. The p u r p o s e s of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n have been s t a t e d a s follows: "The o f f i c e of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s t o t e s t t h e t r u t h of s t a t e m e n t s of a w i t n e s s made on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . Cross-examination s e r v e s a s a s a f e g u a r d t o combat u n r e l i a b l e t e s t i m o n y , prov i d i n g a means f o r d i s c r e d i t i n g a w i t n e s s ' t e s t i mony, and i s i n t h e n a t u r e of a n a t t a c k on h i s t r u t h o r accuracy. The o b j e c t of c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , i s t o weaken o r d i s p r o v e t h e case o f o n e ' s a d v e r s a r y , and b r e a k down h i s testimony i n c h i e f , test t h e r e c o l l e c t i o n , verac i t y , a c c u r a c y , h o n e s t y , and b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e of t h e witness, h i s source of information, h i s m o t i v e s , i n t e r e s t , and memory, and e x h i b i t t h e 9 8 C.J.S. i m p r o b a b i l i t i e s of h i s t e s t i m o n y . " W i t n e s s e s 5 3 7 2 , pp. 125-26. .. C e r t a i n l y e x a m i n a t i o n by t h e o p p o n e n t s o f o t h e r oppon e n t s ' w i t n e s s e s would h a r d l y meet t h e t r u e o b j e c t i v e s o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i n c l u d i n g t h e main o n e , t o t e s t t h e t r u t h of t h e witness' statements. A s r e v e a l e d by t h e r e c o r d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e w a t e r a s p e c t s of t h e c a s e , t h e f o u r main o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s were u n i t e d i n o p p o s i n g t h e a p p l i c a tion. How e x a m i n a t i o n of e a c h o t h e r ' s w i t n e s s e s c o u l d be termed " c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n " c u l t t o understand. under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s d i f f i - I n f a c t , any such i n t e r r o g a t i o n would r e a l l y have amounted t o n o t h i n g more t h a n d i r e c t o r r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e s o l e a i m and p u r p o s e would have been t o b o l s t e r and s u p p o r t t h e t e s t i m o n y a l r e a d y produced on t h e d i r e c t examination. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t took t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 824 2 1 0 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-612(5) MCA, imposes a mandatory r i g h t i n a l l p a r t i e s t o c o n d u c t " c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n " of a l l w i t n e s s e s i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o "cross-examine" t h e a u t h o r of a l l agency documents. W f i n d t h a t t o construe e t h e s t a t u t e so l i t e r a l l y , without considering i n the l e a s t o t h e r s t a t u t e s and c a s e law, i s t o i g n o r e t h e e n t i r e scheme o f t h e MAPA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e Board upon r e h e a r i n g t o p r o v i d e opponents a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine agency witnesses. T h i s would i n v o l v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 w i t n e s s e s who a r e s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e United S t a t e s and t h e world. The c o s t i n v o l v e d , n o t o n l y i n money b u t a l s o i n t i m e , would be s t a g g e r i n g . W have a s e r i o u s d o u b t , a s a e p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , i f t h e main h e a r i n g s a r e any c r i t e r i a (and w e b e l i e v e t h e y a r e ) , t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e c o u l d b e accomp l i s h e d , i f a t a l l , i n less t h a n s i x months o r more. Judge F r i e n d l y i n N a t i o n a l N u t r i t i o n a l , s u p r a , p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s h o u l d n o t remand when t h e outcome would c l e a r l y b e o n l y a r e p e t i t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l decision. There must b e , a s h e s t a t e s i n t h e main t e x t , " a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o b a b i l i t y " t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g f o r which t h e c a s e was remanded would c a u s e t h e agency t o a l t e r i t s o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n , o r a need t o c r e a t e a b e t t e r r e c o r d f o r a p p e l l a t e review of t h e f i n d i n g s . 504 F.2d a t 798. W f i n d t h a t no s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of r e s p o n d e n t s / e c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t s have been p r e j u d i c e d . The h e a r i n g s ex- a m i n e r ' s d e c i s i o n o r p r o c e d u r e was n o t e r r o n e o u s o r i n any manner a v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s . W e d o , however, w i s h t o emphasize t h a t t h i s c a s e i s u n i q u e i n b o t h i t s l e n g t h and c o m p l e x i t y . While w e have h e l d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g s examiner d i d n o t err on t h i s c r o s s examination i s s u e , t h e procedures followed i n t h e hearings s h o u l d n o t b e used as a model f o r f u t u r e h e a r i n g s b e f o r e v a r i o u s s t a t e b o a r d s and a g e n c i e s . W suggest, absent e g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s f o r t h e c o n d u c t of h e a r i n g s a d o p t e d by a board o r agency p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e MAPA, t h a t p r i o r t o any h e a r i n g , a s t a t e board o r agency s h o u l d i s s u e a n o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e p r o c e d u r a l g u i d e l i n e s t o be followed r a t h e r than delegating t h e e n t i r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h e r e f o r t o t h e h e a r i n g s examiner. I n summary w e h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n 1 s h o u l d be a f f i r m e d on I s s u e Nos. 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 and 1 2 , r e v e r s e d on i s s u e s 1 and 2 , w i t h i s s u e s 3 , 4 and 6 b e i n g r e n d e r e d moot. The o p i n i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d and reversed t o t h e e x t e n t set f o r t h herein. The d e c i s i o n of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources t o g r a n t t o a p p e l l a n t s / c r o s s r e s p o n d e n t s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need i s h e r e b y suspended pending compliance w i t h t h i s order. T h i s c a u s e i s h e r e b y remanded t o t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources t o c u r e c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t s found by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and c o n c u r r e d i n by u s w i t h t h e o r d e r and d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources do t h e f o l l o w i n g : (1) Make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law w i t h r e g a r d t o : ( a ) whether u s i n g Rosebud c o a l and n o t McKay c o a l r e p r e s e n t s minimum e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t , and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , and ( b ) whether mine-mouth g e n e r a t i o n a s opposed t o loadc e n t e r g e n e r a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s minimum e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , i n c l u d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a s t o r e l a t i v e e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y and t h e r e l a t i v e i m p a c t o f elect r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n v e r s u s c o a l h a u l a g e , a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( l ) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301 ( 2 ) ( c ) MCA. ( 2 ) Make a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law w i t h r e g a r d t o : (a) c l e a r l y designating a transmission l i n e corridor; ( b ) why t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s p r e f e r s t h e c h o s e n c o r r i d o r t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o r r i d o r s ; and ( c ) w h a t s t a t e and l o c a l l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t b e m e t , and w h e t h e r i n f a c t t h e y have been m e t a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 1 0 ( l ) ( f ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-201 ( 2 ) ( f ) MCA. Such f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law s h a l l b e propounded and e n t e r e d by t h e Board of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , s e r v e d o n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o , and r e t u r n e d t o u s f o r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l w i t h i n 90 d a y s from t h e d a t e h e r e o f . W e concur: . Gulbrandson, for Mr. District Chief Jus- Hon. B. W. Thomas, ~ i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e Sheehy 1 J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea c o n c u r s i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t s i n p a r t and w i l l f i l e a n o p i n i o n l a t e r . Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting: There are many factors concerning this opinion which bother me deeply, but the speed with which it is suddenly being sent down and the last paragraph of the opinion are something that I must presently confine my remarks to--due to a lack of time. Just today I learned that the opinion was going down--today. Only yesterday one of the members of our Court, at the expense of the State, chartered a plane to take the opinion to each of the district judgdso that their signatures could be obtained. The politics behind the urgency of putting this opinion down in this fashion are not something that any Court should be proud of. I know approximately a month to a month and a or half ago the Governor andlone or more of his agents talked to a member of this Court involved in this case, and expressed concern about the political bind in which the Governor was being placdbecause of the passage or threatened passage of the new bill on Colstrip 3 and 4. Court member was not me. I can only say that this The obvious intent was that it would sure be nice if this Court could somehow get the Governor off the hot seat by speeding up our decision. I am not suggesting that those involved intimated at all how our decision should go It is common knowledge that the countdown has started for the Governor to either veto or sign the legislation concerning Colstrip 3 and 4. Undoubtedly, putting our opinion down today will help considerably in helping the Governor reach the "right" political decision. is shocking. To me this entire process Now for a few brief comments on the final paragraph of the majority opinion--for which there is no foundation in law. The paragraph states: "Such findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be propounded and entered by the Board of Natural Resources, served on the parties hereto, and returned to us for review and approval within 90 days from the date hereof." Where in the law, may I ask, does it give this Court the power to exercise continuing jurisdiction over governmental agencies once we have remanded the case to them for further determinations? And where in the law do we have the authority, without an appropriate petition, after the governmental agency has acted, to completely bypass the Administrative Procedure Act and the District Court, in the event one or more of the aggrieved parties would have chosen to file a petition for review in the District Court? There is nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act which authorizes this Court to tell any agency how soon it may act after a remand from this Court. There is nothing that I know of in any of the remaining statutes or case law of this State to justify such a result. Once this Court has acted on an appeal and remanded a case, either to a District Court, or to an administrative agency, we lose jurisdiction. We cannot sit here like a king with strings still attached to the parties and directing them like puppets to comply with our orders. Here we have told the agency to act and get the results back to us within ninety days. usurpation at its worst. This is judicial Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting: There are many factors concerning this opinion which bother me deeply, but because of the speed with which it was sent down, I have not had time to formulate a dissent. For this reason I must confine my comments at this point to the final paragraph of the majority opinion--for which there is no foundation in law. The paragraph states: "Such findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be propounded and entered by the Board of Natural Resources, served on the parties hereto, and returned to us for review and approval within 90 days from the date hereof." Where in the law, may I ask, does it give this Court the power to exercise continuing jurisdiction over governmental agencies once we have remanded the case to them for further determinations? And where in the law do we have the authority without an appropriate petition, after the governmental agency has acted, to completely bypass the Administrative Procedure Act and the District Court, in the event one or more of the aggrieved parties would have chosen to file a petition for review in the District Court? There is nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act which authorizes this Court to tell any agency how soon it may act after a remand from this Court. There is nothing that I know of in any of the remaining statutes or case law of this State to justify such a result. Once this Court has acted on an appeal and remanded a case, either to a District Court, or to an administrative agency, we lose jurisdiction. We cannot sit here like a king with strings still attached to the parties and directing them like puppets to comply with our orders. Here we have told the agency to act and get the results back to us within ninety days. This is judicial usurpation at its worst. # '
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.
