Northern Plains Resource Council v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation

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 AND
NOIiTHEEW CHEYENNE TRIBE, INC.,

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: 193
--
Filed : - .q ,'3
,
Mr. 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.

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 Com-

pany, 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 e t s e q . MCA ( h e r e i n a f t e r

"MAPA"). 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 Westing-

house 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 re-

l 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. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-101 e t seq.
MCA. 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, Mon-

tana. 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 implementa-

tion 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 70-

8 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. Davis s e r v i n g as h e a r i n g s

examiner. 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 ' case-

in-chief 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 pro-

h 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 pro-

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 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 perma-

n 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 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

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 255 w i t -

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 . 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 , con-

s 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. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-704

MCA, 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 -

ings, inferences, conclusions, o r decisions a r e : (a) i n

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 ; (b) i n

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; ( c ) made

upon u n l a w f u l p r o c e d u r e ; ( 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 responsi-

b 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 . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435

U.S. 519, 98 S . C t . 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. a t 549. The c o u r t l e f t l i t t l e d o u b t

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 .

"'Neither t h e s t a t u t e -- l e g i s l a t i v e his-
nor i t s
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 -
tha
tute its
-- judgment - -t- - agency - - f o r t h a of t h e as to
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 . I n Ballenger v. Tillman (1958),

1 3 3 Mont. 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 . 76 Am J u r 2d,

T r i a l , 51259; 89 C.J.S. T r i a l , 5626. 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. Approximately
300 p a g e s of b r i e f s were s u b m i t t e d . 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 70-

810 (1)( h ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 75-20-301 (1) h ) M A
( C?

4. 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 , compli-

a 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. W believe t h a t it
e

did. 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. 1947, now

s e c t i o n 2-4-702 MCA, 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 . Compare, C i s s e l l v . Colorado

S t a t e Bd. of Assessment App. (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. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 58 Haw. 292, 568

P.2d 1189. 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. Had t h e s e a p p e l -

lants/cross-respondents 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, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 2-4-702

MCA, 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, R.C.M. 1947,

now s e c t i o n s 75-20-201 and 75-20-203 MCA. 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 ap-

p 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 review-
a 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 certi-

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 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. I t was
f i n a l f o r a l l purposes. 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

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 . ". . . For
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 . Metro-

p o l i t a n Edison Co. ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 304 U.S. 375, 384, 58 S.Ct. 963,

82 L.ed. 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 Com-
m 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 modi-
f 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 adminis-
t 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 ac-
t 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 neces-
s 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 pro-
c 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
process.' . . ." F i d e l i t y Television, Inc. v.
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 .

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 -
1

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 imple-

mentation plans . . ." T h i s was done by t h e Board of H e a l t h

on November 2 1 , 1975. 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 . I n t h e i r b r i e f s both

appellants/cross-respondents 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. We

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 re-
moval 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 , Find-
i 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 pro-
v 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
of w a t e r p o l l u t i o n . Thus, t h e t y p e of 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 con-
t 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

t o t h i s Court. 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

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. Hayes v . J.M.S. Const. (1978),

- Mont. , 579 P.2d 1225, 35 St.Rep. 722; Mont. A s s ' n

of Underwriters v. S t a t e , Etc. (1977), - Mont. ,
- 563

P.2d 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. 703.
W e p o i n t o u t , however, 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 adop-

t 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 recom-

mendations. 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 com-

p 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 82-4213, R.C.M. 1947, now

s e c t i o n 2-4-623 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 right-
of-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' argu-
ment 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 alter-
native 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. BNR Proposed

F i n d i n g s N.P.R.C. #13-16, 32, 34-36, 66-69, 104-105, 108,

115. 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 con-

c 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. See Board o f

N a t u r a l Resources F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 48. 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 82-4213, R.C.M. 1947, now

s e c t i o n 2-4-623 MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : ". . . 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 com-

p 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 , espe-

c 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 Depart-

ment 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
m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o water. I t ' s m understanding
y
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 examina-
t 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 Appli-
c 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
t o cross-examine your w i t n e s s e s when t h e y ' r e - not
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 --
- granting t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s concernedx-then,
as
- 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
I e
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 sub-

ject. 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 con-

densation. 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 . Under

s e c t i o n 70-808(1) ( c ) , R.C.M. 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 , some-

t 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, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 2-4-612(2)

and 2-4-612(5) MCA, 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 re-
l 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
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
f - a u
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

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. 8556 ( d ) ) i s a l m o s t

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 Adminis-

t 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 govern-

m 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 oppor-

t 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. Greene v . McElroy ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 360

U.S. 474, 79 S . C t . 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. ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 N.J.
1

382, 94 A . 2 d 673. 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 cross-

examine 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 con-

s 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, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 26-1-101(1) 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. 203, 46 P.2d 687; G o l d b e r g v . K e l l y ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,

397 U.S. 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. I n t h i s connection, s e c t i o n 82-4211(2),

R.C.M. 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 con-

t 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 & Drug Admin. (2nd

Cir. 19741, 504 F.2d 761, c e r t . d e n i e d 4 2 0 U.S. 946. 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 pre-

t 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 Coun-

c 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 Coun-

c 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-examina-

t 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 sub-

mitted 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 , pro-
v 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 , vera-
c 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
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 . " 9 8 C.J.S.
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 oppo-

n 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 " under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s d i f f i -

c u l t t o understand. 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 82-

4 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 accom-
p 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

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 ,
1

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 load-
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 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 elec-

t 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, District
for Mr. 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 1
Sheehy

Mr. 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 .
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. I can only say that this
Court member was not me. 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 con-
cerning Colstrip 3 and 4. Undoubtedly, putting our opinion
down today will help considerably in helping the Governor
reach the "right" political decision. To me this entire process
is shocking.
 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. This is judicial
usurpation at its worst.
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 appropri-
ate 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.

#'