Natural Resources — contested case hearings

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Natural Resources — contested case hearings

In order to obtain a contested case hearing, a petition must allege a material factual dispute.

“WISCONSIN STAT. § 227.42(1) does not explicitly state whether a party seeking a contested case hearing must identify a dispute of material fact related to each substantive issue raised in the party’s petition, or whether a single factual dispute related to one of the issues entitles the party to a contested case hearing on every issue. The statute merely states that the petitioner ‘shall have the right’ to a contested case hearing if, among other things, ‘[t]here is a dispute of material fact.’ WIS. STAT. § 227.42(1)(d). Thus, at first blush, the plain language of the statute appears amenable to both Haase-Hardie’s interpretation and the interpretation advanced by the DNR and Preferred Sands.”

“However, closer examination shows that Haase-Hardie’s interpretation of the statute is unreasonable because it produces absurd results. See Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 (statutes must be interpreted reasonably, to avoid absurd results). To illustrate, the permits at issue in this case are over fifty pages long and contain dozens of provisions. The administrative record leading up to the permits’ issuance is nearly 1400 pages long. Under these circumstances, the number of potential areas of disagreement between the DNR, the permit applicant, and the public is enormous. If Haase-Hardie’s interpretation of WIS. STAT. § 227.42(1) were correct, a petitioner would be entitled to a contested case hearing on every one of those potential disagreements, whether legal or factual, simply because he or she was able to identify a single dispute of material fact regarding one of them. We agree with the DNR and Preferred Sands that this result is absurd and would place an unreasonable burden on administrative agencies. Further, it would make no sense to require the DNR to hold contested, evidentiary hearings on purely legal issues that do not require the presentation of evidence. Consequently, the only reasonable interpretation of § 227.42(1) is the one advanced by the DNR and Preferred Sands—namely, that a petitioner is entitled to a contested case hearing only on those specific issues which involve disputes of material fact. Accordingly, the statute is not ambiguous. See West, 336 Wis. 2d 578, ¶54 (statute is ambiguous if language gives rise to more than one reasonable interpretation).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP2827 Haase-Hardie v. DNR

Dist. III, Trempeleau County, Damon, J., Stark, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Williams, Sarah Catherine, Madison; Parra, James E., Madison; For Respondent: Whelan, Maura F.J., Madison; Harbeck, William H., Milwaukee; Strifling, David A., Milwaukee