Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Texas Commission Allows Poultry Farm to Expand and
Change Manure Management System

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Collins v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 94 S.W.3d 876, (Tex. App. 2002), the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the order of the District Court of Travis County. The case originated when an organic farmer requested a contested hearing before the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to oppose a poultry company's permit application to change from a dry waste-management system to a wet system. Id. at 879. TNRCC denied the farmer's request. Id. The farmer then sought judicial review before the Travis County District Court. Id. The district court affirmed. Id. The farmer appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals but failed to present substantial evidence to support his claim that he was denied due process. Id. at 854-55.

Background

A poultry company sought a permit from the TNRCC to change from a dry waste system to an environmentally superior wet waste system. Id. at 879. The farmer, living near the poultry operation, sought a contested hearing to oppose the application. Id. Following the review of pleadings, two public meetings, and after evidence was presented, the TNRCC determined that the farmer was unlikely to be effected by the waste system transformation and denied the farmer's request for a contested hearing. Id.

Arguments

The farmer claimed that TNRCC's failure to grant him a contested hearing was not supported by substantial evidence, that he was denied due process of law and therefore the relevant portion of the Texas Water Code was unconstitutional as applied to him, and that TNRCC erred in not providing findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying his hearing request. Id.

The poultry company argued that the farmer's home was 1.3 miles away from the poultry operation, that neither the farmer nor any other residents had ever complained about the existing operation, that the wind blew toward the farmer's location only 4% of the time; that area groundwater would be protected by the clay-lined lagoons, and that general groundwater flow was not in the direction of the plaintiff's farm; therefore, the farmer was not an affected person as defined by the Texas Water Code. Id. at 883. Additionally, the company argued that the farmer's request was unreasonable because the proposed expansion could be constructed without any permit if the company continued to operate a dry litter system, and the proposed waste-water lagoon system was environmentally superior to a dry litter system. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, the court stated that the issue for the court is not whether the agency reached the correct conclusion, but rather whether there was some reasonable basis in the record for its action. Id. at 881. The findings, inferences, conclusions, and decisions of an administrative agency are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, and the burden is on the contestant to prove otherwise. Id. The Texas Water Code stated that the commission was not required to hold a hearing if the commission determined that the basis of the person's request for a hearing was not reasonable or was not supported by competent evidence. Id.

The court held that TNRCC was well within its discretion to determine that the farmer was not an affected person. Id. at 882. The TNRCC's factors in making the decision included the distance restrictions imposed by law on the affected interest; whether there was a reasonable relationship between the interest claimed and the activity regulated; the likely impact of the regulated activity on health, safety, and use of the property; and the likely impact of the regulated activity on the use of the impacted natural resource by the person. Id. Because the farmer's land was not adjacent to the poultry farm and the operation qualified for a standard air permit, the court held in favor of TNRCC. Id. at 882-83.

Additionally, the court held for TNRCC on the issue of the reasonableness of the evidence. Id. at 883. The court found that the company's change from a dry waste system to a wet waste system would likely reduce odor emissions, was environmentally superior, and could not lawfully create increased groundwater contamination. Id. For these reasons, the farmer's evidence was unreasonable. Id.

The court also found that no due process violation had occurred. Id. at 884. The court noted that the farmer was allowed to file pleadings, submit evidence, and take part in two TNRCC meetings, and that he simply disagreed with the decision of TNRCC. Id.

The case was decided on December 31, 2002.