{ "id": 6139766, "name": "CITY of HECTOR v. ARKANSAS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION Tri-County Regional Distribution District, et al, Intervenors", "name_abbreviation": "City of Hector v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission", "decision_date": "1994-11-30", "docket_number": "CA 94-462", "first_page": "177", "last_page": "181", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "47 Ark. App. 177" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "888 S.W.2d 312" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "278 Ark. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1748074 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 Ark. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1896952 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/311/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ark. App. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140703 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/1/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ark. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1672615 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-212", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(f)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-213", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(5)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 Ark. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1904330 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/308/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138882 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753657 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0308-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 385, "char_count": 5919, "ocr_confidence": 0.841, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3974232254195025e-07, "percentile": 0.6440390926266357 }, "sha256": "78cb732ca801f1e7a966d5b6ee187fd34d7fbc594b696a7fd744f3b0b9adcfe1", "simhash": "1:054aacb7618e0891", "word_count": 952 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:43.647094+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Pittman and Robbins, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "CITY of HECTOR v. ARKANSAS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION Tri-County Regional Distribution District, et al, Intervenors" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nOne of the appellees in this soil and water conservation case, Tri-County Regional Water Distribution District, was certified by the Commission to provide water service to an area which the City of Hector also wanted to serve. The Commission, after two public hearings presided over by an Appeals Committee, accepted the Committee\u2019s recommendation to uphold the executive director\u2019s denial of the City\u2019s application to serve an enlarged area. The circuit court affirmed the Commission. From that decision, comes this appeal.\nFor reversal, the appellant contends that the Commission erred in limiting the presentation of evidence and conduct of cross-examination by the City and in denying the City an opportunity for a hearing, and that the Commission\u2019s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We find no error, and we affirm.\nIn cases arising under the Administrative Procedure Act, we reverse only if substantial evidence is lacking, an abuse of discretion has occurred, or if the agency has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Arkansas ABC Board v. King, 275 Ark. 308, 629 S.W.2d 288 (1982). The rules governing judicial review of administrative decisions are identical for both the circuit and appellate courts, Fouch v. State, ABC Div., 10 Ark. App. 139, 662 S.W.2d 181 (1983), and it is the decision of the agency, rather than that of the circuit court, which we review. See Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Muncrief, 308 Ark. 373, 825 S.W.2d 816 (1992).\nWe first address the appellant\u2019s argument that the Commission erred in limiting the City\u2019s presentation of evidence and conduct of cross-examination. As the appellant correctly notes, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-213(5) (Repl. 1992) provides that parties to an agency hearing have the right to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. However, the record before us indicates that two pub-lie hearings were had regarding the appellant\u2019s application prior to the proceeding before the Commission\u2019s appeals committee. Furthermore, we are unable to determine from the record before us what evidence the appellant sought to disclose by introduction or cross-examination, and no proffer or offer of proof appears in the record before us. Nor is there any indication that the appellant made application to the circuit court for leave to present additional evidence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-212(f) (Repl. 1992). In the absence of any proffer or statutory showing that the additional evidence the appellant desired would have been material, we find no error on this point. See Woolsey v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission, 263 Ark. 348, 565 S.W.2d 22 (1978); Ray v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 1 Ark. App. 196, 614 S.W.2d 676 (1981).\nThe appellant next contends that the Commission erred in denying it an opportunity to conduct a hearing. In support of this point, the appellant argues that \u201cthe Commission had already made its findings,\u201d and that it was \u201cfruitless for the City to proceed because it was evident that the decision had already been made.\u201d Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 25-15-213(2)(c) (Repl. 1992) permits any party to an adjudication to file an affidavit of personal bias or disqualification to the agency which will be granted if it is timely, sufficient, and filed in good faith. However, although the appellant\u2019s argument is premised on an allegation that the Commission was biased against it, there is no indication in the record before us that the statutorily-required affidavit was filed with or considered by the Commission in the case at bar. It is essential to judicial review under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act that issues be raised before the administrative agency in order to be addressed by the appellate court, and, in the absence of such a filing or a ruling thereon, we cannot say that the Commission was biased against the appellant to such an extent as to effectively deny it an opportunity to conduct a hearing. See Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Board, 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992).\nFinally, the appellant contends that the Commission\u2019s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. In support of this contention, the appellant notes that a draft narrative prepared by the Commission\u2019s engineer contains erroneous calculations concerning the costs and revenues expected from the appellant\u2019s proposal. Although the engineer\u2019s draft does appear to contain an erroneous calculation, we find no indication in the record before us that the Commission relied on this specific calculation in arriving at its decision. In order to establish an absence of substantial evidence, the appellant is required to demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded men could not reach the conclusion it arrived at; the question is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding, but whether it supported the finding that was actually made. Williams v. Scott, 278 Ark. 453, 647 S.W.2d 115 (1983). In the case at bar, there was evidence to show that the City had not done an adequate job in providing water to the limited area it already served, and that it would have difficulty meeting environmental and health-related standards. Given this evidence, we cannot say that the Commission erred in denying the City\u2019s application to provide water service to an enlarged area, and we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nPittman and Robbins, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rush & Cook, by: Craig L. Cook, for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., and A. Mark Bennett, III, for appellee.", "Timothy W. Murach, for intervenors." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CITY of HECTOR v. ARKANSAS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION Tri-County Regional Distribution District, et al, Intervenors\nCA 94-462\n888 S.W.2d 312\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered November 30, 1994\nRush & Cook, by: Craig L. Cook, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., and A. Mark Bennett, III, for appellee.\nTimothy W. Murach, for intervenors." }, "file_name": "0177-01", "first_page_order": 199, "last_page_order": 203 }