Hudson River Fisherman’s Association v. Williams

Spring Valley Water Company, Inc. (Spring Valley) supplied water to a growing municipality. Due to the growing demand for water, Spring Valley submitted a water supply application to the Department of Environmental Conservation. Spring Valley sought permission to construct an additional water source. The project addressed current and future water supply needs. During the hearings for the application, the need for an additional water supply was obvious, but the parties sharply disagreed on the timing of the need. The Commissioner of Environmental Conservation (Commissioner) (defendant) approved the project but established a triggering mechanism for issuing the construction permits. The triggering mechanism provided that the date of the project’s implementation would be tied to the demand for the water utilized. Substantial evidence supported the need for greater peak-demand capacity. The trigger mechanism ensured that the construction permits will not be issued until the need for an expanded water supply was imminent. Among other concerns, the construction project would likely include loss of an important trout habitat. The Commissioner adopted the administrative-law judge’s conditional approval of the water project. The Hudson River Fisherman’s Association (plaintiff) appealed, challenging the Commissioner’s determination as: (1) arbitrary and capricious; (2) an unlawful delegation of legislative authority to a private utility; and (3) being violative of state environmental law.