{
  "id": 8521697,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FINAL ORDER GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO G.S. SEC. 162A-7",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal from the Environmental Management Commission",
  "decision_date": "1986-04-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8510SC694",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "27",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.C. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520023
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 775",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560423
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561719
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570336,
        8570284,
        8570444,
        8570383,
        8570419
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0294-02",
        "/nc/298/0294-01",
        "/nc/298/0294-05",
        "/nc/298/0294-03",
        "/nc/298/0294-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 328",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550641
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/41/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 373",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570219
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. L. Rev. 1",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "discussing the evolution and application of G.S. 8-58.14"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 S.E. 2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "620-21"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.C. App. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526730
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "350"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/72/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564002
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 S.E. 2d 704",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561922,
        8561865,
        8561837,
        8561902,
        8561948
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0160-04",
        "/nc/293/0160-02",
        "/nc/293/0160-01",
        "/nc/293/0160-03",
        "/nc/293/0160-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S.E. 2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548910
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/33/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560962
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E. 2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573443,
        8573515,
        8573486,
        8573424,
        8573462
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0441-02",
        "/nc/294/0441-05",
        "/nc/294/0441-04",
        "/nc/294/0441-01",
        "/nc/294/0441-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 S.E. 2d 574",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550169
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/34/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S.Ct. 496",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 L.Ed. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "454 U.S. 959",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6435907,
        6436037,
        6435855,
        6435991,
        6435769
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/454/0959-03",
        "/us/454/0959-05",
        "/us/454/0959-02",
        "/us/454/0959-04",
        "/us/454/0959-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572356,
        8572297,
        8572240,
        8572274,
        8572319
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0182-05",
        "/nc/303/0182-03",
        "/nc/303/0182-01",
        "/nc/303/0182-02",
        "/nc/303/0182-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 S.E. 2d 546",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2643582
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 S.E. 2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571060
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562325
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568288
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 109",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552740
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "541",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569880
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 S.E. 2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563992,
        8564011,
        8563944,
        8563965
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0562-03",
        "/nc/300/0562-04",
        "/nc/300/0562-01",
        "/nc/300/0562-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 379",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575681
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568091
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 373",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552836
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 S.E. 2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 N.C. App. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553073
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/38/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527-28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1619,
    "char_count": 59951,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.399553514715732e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9198719693696428
    },
    "sha256": "b6ba94b20cef2df2c3e174ecfdd05880e909be06ea16949a176709e51c72a671",
    "simhash": "1:b19c9488e4dfe4b8",
    "word_count": 9589
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:08.586003+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FINAL ORDER GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO G.S. SEC. 162A-7"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nI.\nAppellants have appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court upholding the order of the EMC granting a certificate of authority to OWASA to institute eminent domain proceedings to acquire lands along Cane Creek for the purpose of constructing an impoundment reservoir. The scope of judicial review of this administrative proceeding is not in dispute. Since this matter was initiated prior to the effective date of the new Administrative Procedure Act, N.C. Sess. Laws (2d Sess., 1985) c. 746, s. 19, codified at G.S. Chapter 150B, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1973 (APA), G.S. Chapter 150A, apply to this case. Section 51 of the APA provides in part as follows:\nThe court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:\n(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or\n(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or\n(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or\n(4) Affected by other error of law; or\n(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150A-29(a) or G.S. 150A-30 in view of the entire record as submitted; or\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nUnder the whole record test embodied in subsection (5), agency findings of fact are conclusive if, upon review of the whole record, they are supported by evidence which is competent, material, and substantial. In re Faulkner, 38 N.C. App. 222, 247 S.E. 2d 668 (1978). While the reviewing court is required to consider evidence that supports and detracts from the agency ruling, it may not substitute its judgment for the agency\u2019s and may not find facts. Community Savings and Loan v. N. C. Savings & Loan Comm\u2019n, 43 N.C. App. 493, 259 S.E. 2d 373 (1979); In re Faulkner, supra. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person would consider adequate to support a finding of fact. Lackey v. Dept. of Human Resources, 306 N.C. 231, 293 S.E. 2d 171 (1982). See also Coastal Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners of the Town of Nags Head, 299 N.C. 620, 265 S.E. 2d 379, reh\u2019g denied, 300 N.C. 562, 270 S.E. 2d 106 (1980).\nAppellants contend that when the whole record test is applied to each of the six factors listed under G.S. 150A-51, the order of the EMC fails to satisfy all but the third one. Though neither OWASA nor the EMC addresses the point, we note at the outset that appellants\u2019 argument is based on an apparent misapprehension of the law. By the very terms of the statute, the whole record test applies only with respect to the fifth listed consideration, whether the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. This interpretation is supported by the opinion of our Supreme Court in Thompson v. Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 233 S.E. 2d 538 (1980), and by this Court\u2019s decision in the earlier appeal in this case. In both cases, the whole record test was stated with specific reference to G.S. 150A-5K5):\nThis standard of judicial review is known as the \u201cwhole record\u201d test and must be distinguished from both de novo review and the \u201cany competent evidence\u201d standard of review. . . . The \u201cwhole record\u201d test does not allow the reviewing court to replace the Board\u2019s judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have reached a different result had the matter been before it de novo, ... On the other hand, the \u201cwhole record\u201d rule requires the court, in determining the substantiality of evidence supporting the Board\u2019s decision, to take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the Board\u2019s evidence. Under the whole evidence rule, the court may not consider the evidence which in and of itself justifies the Board\u2019s result, without taking into account contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn.\nThompson v. Wake County Board of Education, supra, at 410, 233 S.E. 2d at 541 (citations omitted). See In re EMC, supra, at 146, 280 S.E. 2d at 527-28.\nThe other five factors involve different questions entirely. Depending on the facts of a particular case, consideration of these factors can involve scrutiny of the entire record. None of them, however, requires an evidentiary review of the same nature as that which the reviewing court is required to apply with respect to subsection (5).\nII.\nG.S. 162A-7 provides that water authorities seeking to acquire property by eminent domain must receive authorization from \u201cthe Board,\u201d and sets forth the procedures for doing so. \u201cThe Board\u201d as used in the statute originally referred to the Board of Water Commissioners, G.S. 162A-2(2), whose function was succeeded to by the EMC. G.S. Secs. 143-211, 143B-282. G.S. 162A-7(c) provides that the certification may only be issued for projects that are \u201cconsistent with the maximum beneficial use of the water resources in the State and shall give paramount consideration to the statewide effect of the proposed project rather than its purely local or regional effect.\u201d The statute lists seven factors that the EMC must \u201cspecifically consider\u201d in making its determination:\n(1) The necessity of the proposed project;\n(2) Whether the proposed project will promote and increase the storage and conservation of water;\n(3) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the proposed project to the present beneficial use of water in the affected watershed and resulting damages to present beneficial users;\n(4) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the proposed project to the potential beneficial use of water on the affected watershed;\n(5) The feasibility of alternative sources of supply to the petitioning authority and comparative cost thereof;\n(6) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the use of alternative sources of supply to present and potential beneficial use of water on the watershed or watersheds affected by such alternative sources of supply;\n(7) All other factors as will, in the Board\u2019s opinion, produce the maximum beneficial use of water for all in all areas of the State affected by the proposed project or alternatives thereto.\nG.S. 162A-7(c). Appellants contend that the EMC based its decision on an erroneous interpretation of this statute with the result that the overall goal of maximum beneficial use of the State\u2019s water resources was not achieved and the statewide effect of the project was ignored. They argue that the EMC placed too much emphasis on water quality, a consideration not listed in the statute, and failed to consider the listed factors sufficiently to effect the policy of the statute. Appellants rely on this Court\u2019s earlier decision in this case for the proposition that the policy of the statute requires the EMC to consider more than the exploitation and development of water resources. Appellants argue that the language of the statute leaves the EMC no choice or discretion as to which factors to consider and that giving due consideration to the interests of the State precludes consideration of such local concerns as water quality. Referring to the EMC\u2019s findings of fact dealing with water quality, and specifically to findings 19, 38, and 52, appellants contend that the EMC\u2019s decision reflects a disregard for the statutory mandate. We disagree.\nTo contend, as appellants apparently do, that water quality is of limited or no relevance to EMC decisions regarding sources of proposed water supplies ignores one of the primary purposes of the N. C. Water and Sewer Authorities Act. G.S. 162A-1 through 162A-19. The authorities created under this Act are public in-strumentalities charged with the delivery of water and sewer services to the public in a manner consistent with the objectives of the police power, including the public health and welfare. See G.S. 162A-6. Viewed in this context, we think that water quality is not only a permissible consideration for the EMC, but also one that is important if not essential to the responsible exercise of the police power. See Valevais v. City of New Bern, 10 N.C. App. 215, 178 S.E. 2d 109 (1970); G.S. 160A-311. See generally 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain Sec. 45 (1965 and Supp. 1985). By arguing that the EMC may consider only the factors specifically listed in the statute, appellants advocate a more restrictive reading than the legislature, in our view, intended. The seventh listed factor is a \u201ccatch all\u201d provision that allows the EMC to consider \u201call other factors as will, in the Board\u2019s opinion, produce the maximum beneficial use of water\u201d for affected areas of the State. While directing that the EMC \u201cshall specifically consider\u201d the listed factors, the statute contains no language limiting the EMC\u2019s consideration to those factors. Clearly, the EMC has some latitude and discretion as to the factors to consider in each situation and the weight to be given them in reaching a decision. The only limitation is that the EMC\u2019s consideration of any factor relate to the maximum beneficial use of the State\u2019s water resources. When the alternatives proposed involve differences in water quality, then clearly water quality can be one of the \u201cother factors\u201d that may be considered.\nAs appellants point out, the EMC is required to give \u201cparamount consideration to the statewide effect\u201d of the proposed project. This does not, as appellants contend, preclude consideration by the EMC of local or regional factors. On the contrary, the language of the statute assumes that some consideration will be given to local and regional concerns but requires that the larger interest of the State be of \u201cparamount\u201d concern. Support for this interpretation may be found in Article 2 of Chapter 162A, the Regional Water Supply Planning Act of 1971, G.S. 162A-20 through 162A-25, a companion to Article 1, the Water and Sewer Authorities Act. The preamble of the Act reflects the legislative intent as regards the interaction of local and State interests. The need for regional planning and development of water systems is emphasized as \u201cnecessary in order to provide an adequate supply of high quality water to the State\u2019s citizens.\u201d G.S. 162A-2K3). The obvious purpose of the Act is to incorporate the many small water supply systems in North Carolina into a coordinated regional and statewide network. It is in this sense that statewide interests are paramount to local concerns. There is nothing in the Act that requires local concerns to be disregarded. See generally Fuller, N. C. Dept. of Water Resources Planning Report (1964).\nWe note finally that findings 19, 38 and 52, which appellants contend are \u201cthe heart of the EMC\u2019s decision,\u201d are only three nonconsecutive findings out of a total of fifty-four. Given the important objective of providing safe drinking water to the State\u2019s population, this can hardly be called overemphasis. In light of the principles discussed above, we think that the statutory interpretation urged by appellants is too restrictive and based on erroneous assumptions regarding legislative intent. In our opinion, the fact that the EMC made findings regarding water quality reflects an accurate interpretation of G.S. 162A-7 and is neither offensive to nor inconsistent with the policy of the Act.\nIII.\nBy its language, G.S. 162A-7 contemplates the consideration of one or more alternatives to the project for which the certificate of authority is sought. Accordingly, several alternatives to the Cane Creek project were proposed. Among these alternatives were three proposals which involved piping water from three different sections of Jordan Lake, then being developed by the Corps of Engineers, to the OWASA filtration plant; three which involved piping water from Jordan Lake to University Lake; two proposals that called for pumping water from the Haw River at Bynum to University Lake or the OWASA filtration plant; and one that involved increasing the capacity of University Lake. Other proposals, such as purchasing water from Durham, were disregarded as not feasible.\na.\nIn their second substantive argument, appellants contend that the EMC erred because it failed to consider federal and state water quality standards in making its findings. This contention appears to be in direct conflict with appellants\u2019 position in the previous argument that water quality does not enter into the EMC\u2019s decision at all. Referring specifically to findings of fact 19 and 20, appellants contend that the EMC\u2019s consideration of water quality consisted merely of a comparison of the alternatives and not an objective evaluation based on the absolute standards contained in state and federal laws and regulations. Appellants argue that the comparison method is misleading and inaccurate and that its use by the EMC constitutes a reversible error of law. In support of this argument, appellants cite us to G.S. 143-214.1, which directs the EMC to develop a system for evaluating and classifying the water resources of the state in a manner that promotes the prudent utilization of them. The primary framework for classification under this statute is water quality and the criteria to be applied are to be drawn up in accordance with federal water quality standards.\nAs OWASA points out, however, appellants have completely ignored the North Carolina Drinking Water Act, G.S. 130A-311 through 130A-327, and its predecessor, G.S. 130-166.39 through 130-166.61, the stated purpose of which is \u201cto regulate water systems within the State which supply drinking water to the public that may affect the public health.\u201d G.S. 130A-312. The Drinking Water Act directs the State Department of Human Resources, G.S. 130A-2(2), to \u201cexamine all waters and their sources and surroundings which are used as, or proposed to be used as, sources of public water supply.\u201d G.S. 130A-316 (emphasis added). With this in mind, the Department of Human Resources is directed to establish minimum standards for contaminants in drinking water and the treatment available for reducing the, level of the contaminants. G.S. 130A-315. The law also provides for the amendment of the standards \u201cas necessary in accordance with required federal regulations.\u201d G.S. 130A-315(c).\nThe section of the North Carolina Administrative Code that contains the water quality standards is 10D-1600 through 10D-1625. The statutory authority for these regulations is given as the North Carolina Drinking Water Act, supra, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub. L. 93-523, codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f-300j(9), and 40 CFR 141, the federal regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A comparative reading of the federal and state statutes and the regulations promulgated under each discloses that the state standards are patterned on the federal model. For instance, the maximum permissible levels of all listed contaminants \u2014 inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and coliform bacteria \u2014 are the same. Compare N.C.A.C. 10D-1613-10D-1616 with 40 CFR 141.11-141.14. The language of the State regulations is virtually identical to the federal regulations. Id.\nThe Final Environmental Impact Statements prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Environmental Management indicate clearly that the feasible alternatives were thoroughly evaluated in terms of the applicable standards and in accordance with the methods prescribed in the regulations. Other than generalized assertions that the EMC failed to consider this information in making its findings, appellants have not attempted to show how the data accumulated and reported in the Environmental Impact Statements is inaccurate or was incorrectly gathered. It is clear that adequate data existed for the EMC to make a comparison based on water quality.\nb.\nAppellants seem to contend that the EMC\u2019s findings as to water quality do not reflect adequate consideration of the available data and amount to an ad hoc determination based on unspecified data, speculative and arbitrary criteria, and subjective aesthetic notions of water quality. Appellants\u2019 argument presupposes that the EMC is procedurally required in its decision to state the evidentiary basis for its ultimate findings regarding water quality. Otherwise, appellants argue, there is no assurance that the findings are based on competent record evidence or that the EMC considered the proper factors. We disagree.\nThe factors that the EMC is specifically directed to consider in determining whether to issue a certificate authorizing the exercise of eminent domain power are set forth in G.S. 162A-7, as noted above. While water quality is not one of them, we have already discussed how water quality is clearly an appropriate consideration. The statute makes no provision regarding how extensive the findings on any one factor are required to be or what evidence is required to support the findings made with regard to them. Any requirement that the factors be given equal weight or that specific supporting evidence exist in each situation would be impossible to satisfy and obviously was not intended by the legislature. The EMC\u2019s proceedings under G.S. 162A-7 are governed by the APA; the evidentiary standards set forth therein apply equally to any findings made by the agency. G.S. 150A-36, 150A-51. That standard, previously stated in part I, is that any finding must be supported by substantial, competent, and relevant evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Thompson v. Board of Education, supra. If the EMC in its discretion deems water quality to be of such importance that specific findings are necessary to a sound decision, those findings must be supported accordingly. There is no statutory or other requirement that the EMC\u2019s findings regarding water quality or any other factor contain references to prescribe water quality standards, though one could easily have been imposed. Absent a clear legislative mandate, we will not require more than the APA demands. We perceive nothing about the EMC\u2019s findings regarding water quality that would render them inadequate as a matter of law to support the conclusions. Appellants\u2019 contention in this regard is without merit.\nc.\nIt is difficult to determine from appellants\u2019 argument whether they challenge the water quality findings on the grounds that they are not supported by the evidence. Because we deem the resolution of this question important to a thorough and sound judicial review, we will treat the question as having been properly raised. We hold that the findings are amply supported.\nIn finding 19, the EMC found that Cane Creek was the safest and best water source of the available water sources, that it would provide water of a consistently high quality, and that it presented fewer risks than the Haw River or Jordan Lake alternatives. The data base for this finding is enormous. State and federal agencies conducted numerous tests in the course of preparing the EIS. In addition, several University and government sponsored surveys and studies on the quality of water in the drainage areas have been conducted. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Final Environmental Impact Statement (1981) 38-44. Area water quality has been more or less continuously monitored pursuant to various government programs. In all, more than 66,000 individual water quality observations have been made of Cane Creek and the other alternatives since 1966. Division of Environmental Management, Final Cane Creek EIS (1982) at 55. The amount of material and the volume of raw data on water quality defies adequate summary in this opinion; such a summary would add little to the extensive and thorough analyses contained in the state and federal EIS. Those analyses set forth clearly the data used, the methods employed, the criteria involved, and the assumptions made. The alternatives were evaluated in the four broad areas of contaminants listed in federal and state regulations: nutrients, synthetic organic chemicals, metals, and bacteria. They were also evaluated in terms of point source discharges and effectiveness of available treatment. Based on these evaluations, the findings of fact show the Cane Creek and University Lake alternatives to be the best sources; University Lake actually had a lower bacterial content than Cane Creek. Of these two, only Cane Creek could provide the desired yield of 10 million gallons per day. While significant improvement was noted in the water quality of Haw River and improvement was anticipated in the quality of Jordan Lake, the existence of numerous pollution discharge point sources and the presence within their drainage areas of significant amounts of urban land, developed areas, and major highways, as well as the difficulty of controlling discharges and monitoring quality in such a large area, were factors perceived as making those sources more susceptible to water quality degradation and thus not as safe. We are satisfied that the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Environmental Management evaluated the alternatives in a scientifically acceptable empirical manner. Any speculation occurred only because it was impossible with the Cane Creek and Jordan Lake alternatives to determine the quality of water in reservoirs that did not yet exist. When assumptions had to be made, they were limited. It is clear from the findings and from the record that careful attention was paid to federal and state water quality standards. Appellants\u2019 contention that these standards were ignored is without merit.\nd.\nAs the finder of fact, the EMC is responsible under the APA for deducing the facts from raw evidence. See G.S. 150A-36. Within our judiciary it has long been recognized that there are two kinds of fact, evidentiary and ultimate facts. Williams v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 288 N.C. 338, 218 S.E. 2d 368 (1975). An ultimate fact is the result reached by processes of logical reasoning from the evidentiary facts, Farmers Bank v. Michael T. Brown Distributors, Inc., 307 N.C. 342, 298 S.E. 2d 357 (1983), and is often difficult to distinguish from a legal conclusion. Id. When a trial court sits as a finder of fact, it is required under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52, to find facts and state separately its conclusions of law. Our Supreme Court has held that the court must find only the ultimate facts on which its conclusions are based; a recitation of the evidence is not required. Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 290 S.E. 2d 653 (1982); Farmers Bank v. Michael T. Brown Distributors, Inc., supra. Though the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, Rules 1-84, do not govern proceedings under the APA, the same principles regarding ultimate and evidentiary facts apply regarding the findings the agency is required to make. With this in mind, it is clear that finding of fact 19, which appellants challenge as a conclusory finding based on unsupported assumptions, is actually an ultimate finding based on a sound evidentiary foundation. It contains a reference to other sections of the EMC\u2019s decision which include findings on the issue of water quality that are far more detailed and have a specific and identifiable evidentiary basis. Assuming arguendo that appellants are correct in their assertion that the EMC was required to state the evidentiary basis for its findings, their contention that the requirement was not satisfied is without merit.\ne.\nAppellants\u2019 final argument under this section appears to be that in making finding 19 the EMC established and applied standards not authorized by the State, amounting essentially to an ultra vires act. This argument is inconsistent with the position taken by appellants throughout most of their argument that the EMC either applied the wrong standards or used none at all. We have already noted that water quality was an appropriate consideration for the EMC and determined that the correct standards were applied. Further discussion of these points would be unnecessarily repetitive. For reasons already stated, appellants\u2019 contention that the EMC exceeded its authority is without merit.\nIV.\nAppellants purportedly bring finding of fact No. 20 within their third argument and challenge it on all of the same grounds. That finding involves the costs of the various alternatives and reads as follows:\n20. The reasonable estimated cost and relative ranking of the Cane Creek Reservoir and its alternatives, based on 1978 cost estimates with built-in costs for GAC (Granular Activated Carbon) filtration added to all alternatives except Cane Creek and University Lake, are set out below. The comparative costs are similar and do not provide a basis for ranking one project over the others.\nEstimated Costs and Rankings of Alternatives\nNo specific reference is made to finding of fact No. 20 in appellants\u2019 third argument, which appears to be concerned entirely with finding No. 19. Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellants\u2019 argument regarding finding No. 20 may be deemed to be abandoned. We have nevertheless reviewed the entire record and find therein substantial competent evidence to support the finding. Indeed, there is little about the finding that appellants could reasonably take issue with. Elsewhere in their brief, appellants object to the inclusion by the EMC of the $6 million cost of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment to the total cost of all but the Haw River and Jordan Lake alternatives. Since GAC treatment is not legally required and is not necessary to render the Haw River and Jordan Lake sources potable, appellants argue that its cost should not be reflected in the total cost. We disagree.\nGAC treatment helps control algae growth in water with high concentrations of nutrients, a condition that can cause taste and odor problems. Final Cane Creek EIS, supra, at 73-75. It also helps reduce the level of synthetic organic chemicals (SOC). Id. At the time of the EMC\u2019s decision, GAC treatment was not required. The Environmental Protection Agency had, however, proposed a regulation that would have required GAC treatment for the Haw River and Jordan Lake alternatives. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Cane Creek) (1981) Appendix F-21. Nevertheless, because the levels of nutrients and SOC in the Jordan Lake and Haw River sources were significantly higher than in Cane Creek or University Lake, OWASA stipulated that GAC treatment would be used with these alternatives to control taste and odor and to reduce the SOC level. Final Cane Creek EIS, supra.\nIn view of the public health risks associated with contaminated water, see Final Cane Creek EIS, supra at 60, OWASA obviously viewed the GAC treatment of water from Jordan Lake or the Haw River as necessary to provide its service population with water as free of contaminants as possible. While not statutorily required, the GAC treatment is clearly a means for OWASA to satisfy its police power responsibility. We agree that public health concerns warranted the inclusion of the cost of GAC treatment as a component of the total cost of the alternatives with which it would be used. Appellants argue that this artificially inflates the cost of those projects and has the effect of making them less desirable alternatives. It is true that Cane Creek is the least expensive alternative only when GAC treatment is added to the Jordan Lake and Haw River alternatives. We note, however, that cost is only one of the factors that the EMC must consider and that whatever cost advantage might be gained by using one of the Jordan Lake or Haw River alternatives would have to be weighed against the consequent degradation of water quality. The cheapest alternative may not be the best one.\nAppellants\u2019 contention that including the cost of the GAC treatment with some of the alternatives was an error of law is without merit; the cost of GAC treatment was properly included in the cost of the Jordan Lake and Haw River alternatives. Appellants do not otherwise seriously challenge this finding and our review of the record shows clearly that it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Assuming arguendo that the finding was somehow erroneous, appellants have not established how it was prejudicial to them. Their contention in this regard is without merit.\nV.\na.\nAppellants next contend that 32 of the EMC\u2019s 54 findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record as submitted. Appellants purport to bring forward under this single argument 81 exceptions and 27 assignments of error. In a related argument, appellants contend that the EMC erred in failing to find certain facts which they contend are supported by the record. This argument is based on a single assignment of error and 43 exceptions. In support of this argument, appellants set out the findings which they contend should have been made followed by a parenthetical reference to the place in the record where supporting evidence appears.\nNone of the 28 assignments of error or the 124 exceptions encompassed within these two arguments are addressed specifically in appellants\u2019 brief. Appellants instead take a broadened approach, arguing that all of the challenged findings are based on evidence which is either incompetent or so weak and speculative as to have no probative value. While the assignments and exceptions are specific enough, appellants\u2019 general argument amounts to no more than a broadside request for this Court to wade through the voluminous record to determine whether any of the assignments of error has merit or whether any of the exceptions has a legal basis. This is ineffectual to present a question for our review. Rule 28 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that \u201c[exceptions ... in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d This has been interpreted by our Courts to require that a question purportedly raised by an assignment of error or exception be presented and argued in the brief in order to obtain appellate review. Stanley v. Stanley, 51 N.C. App. 172, 275 S.E. 2d 546, disc. rev. denied, 303 N.C. 182, 280 S.E. 2d 454, app. dismissed, 454 U.S. 959, 70 L.Ed. 2d 374, 102 S.Ct. 496 (1981); Love v. Pressley, 34 N.C. App. 503, 239 S.E. 2d 574 (1977), disc. rev. denied, 294 N.C. 441, 241 S.E. 2d 843 (1978). Appellants\u2019 nonspecific arguments merely reiterate the assignments of error and are not effective to present them for review by this Court. See State v. McMorris, 290 N.C. 286, 225 S.E. 2d 553 (1976); State v. Brothers, 33 N.C. App. 233, 234 S.E. 2d 652, disc. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 160, 236 S.E. 2d 704 (1977).\nb.\nIn the interest of a thorough review, we have considered appellants\u2019 arguments which raise the single question of whether the EMC\u2019s findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence based.on the whole record as submitted. We find appellants\u2019 arguments to be without merit. Appellants contend that much of the expert testimony presented by OWASA is incompetent because it is speculative and lacks a proper evidentiary foundation. This argument is premised on appellants\u2019 assertion that North Carolina law requires an expert to base his opinion on facts within his personal knowledge or on evidence in the record before the court. As authority for their arguments, appellants rely on the 1967 case of Todd v. Watts, 269 N.C. 417, 152 S.E. 2d 448 (1967), and Stansbury, N.C. Evidence Sec. 136 (rev. ed. 1973). Those authorities state the rule formerly applicable in this jurisdiction that the facts on which an expert bases his opinion must be recited in a hypothetical question. G.S. 150A-29 provides that contested cases heard under the APA be conducted in accordance with the same rules of evidence that apply in the judicial courts. The requirement that a hypothetical question be used to elicit expert testimony was abolished by G.S. 8-58.12 (effective 1 October 1981), which was the rule in effect when the EMC heard evidence in this case in November and December of 1982. G.S. 8-58.14 provides: \u201cUpon trial, the expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless an adverse party requests, [sic] otherwise, in which event the expert will be required to disclose such underlying facts or data on direct examination or voir dire.\" This rule, which has since been repealed, N.C. Sess. Laws (Regular Sess. 1984) c. 1037, s. 9, is essentially the same as G.S. 8C-1, Rule 705, which superseded it in 1984. 1 Brandis N.C. Evidence Sec. 136 (Supp. 1983). Regarding the new rule, this Court has recently said, \u201c[a]n expert need not testify from personal knowledge as long as the basis for his or her opinion is available in the record or upon demand.\u201d Thompson v. Lenoir Transfer Co., 72 N.C. App. 348, 350, 324 S.E. 2d 619, 620-21 (1985). See generally Blakey, Examination of Expert Witnesses in North Carolina, 61 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (1982) (discussing the evolution and application of G.S. 8-58.14). Prior disclosure of the facts supporting the opinions of the experts was not required by hypothetical question or otherwise, except upon appellants\u2019 demand. Appellants do not argue that their requests for disclosure of these facts were denied nor do they demonstrate how, with respect to any of the assignments of error or related exceptions, the expert testimony on which the challenged findings were based is not founded on facts or data in the record. Though appellants do not specifically raise the question, we note for purposes of clarification that, under the law then in effect, expert testimony was not objectionable because it contained an opinion on the ultimate issue. State v. Sparks, 297 N.C. 314, 255 S.E. 2d 373 (1979). See generally, 1 Brandis, N.C. Evidence Sec. 126 (1982). We note further that G.S. 150A-29(a) permits the admission of reliable hearsay evidence in certain circumstances which, in our opinion, are present in this case. Appellants\u2019 argument that the evidence is not competent is without merit.\nc.\nHaving established that the evidence supporting the challenged findings is competent, we now consider whether it is sufficient to support the findings. The whole record test requires that the reviewing court consider not only evidence which supports the findings made, but that which detracts from them as well. Boehm v. N. C. Bd. of Podiatry Examiners, 41 N.C. App. 567, 255 S.E. 2d 328, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E. 2d 298 (1979). It is with this principle and those discussed in part I of this opinion in mind that we consider the findings that appellants contend should have been made. Based on our review of the record, unaided by appellants\u2019 bare assertions, these proposed findings and the evidence on which they were based are for the most part reflected in the findings that actually were made; to the extent that they are not thus reflected, they do not conflict with the findings made. Where the evidence which supports the proposed findings conflicts with the evidence that supports the EMC\u2019s findings, it does not detract from the EMC\u2019s findings sufficiently, in our opinion, to compel the conclusion that any of the EMC\u2019s findings lack adequate support. The EMC\u2019s findings are comprehensive and show every indication that all of the relevant, competent, and substantial evidence was considered, as discussed more fully in part VI. The Superior Court order affirming the EMC\u2019s decision indicates clearly that its review of this question was in accordance with the mandate of In re EMC, supra.\nAided by OWASA\u2019s brief, our own review of the whole record in this case reveals that the challenged findings have adequate support. When the EMC\u2019s findings were based on expert opinion, the opinion was supported by information in the record. The opinions were elicited from qualified experts in accordance with the rules of evidence and appellants were allowed sufficient opportunity for cross-examination. Otherwise, the findings are based on data that is beyond serious dispute or evidence that is manifestly credible. Appellants have not attempted to demonstrate, except in the most general sense, how the challenged findings lack sufficient evidentiary support. In the interest of a thorough review, we have considered appellants\u2019 vague and nonspecific arguments more thoroughly than either the law requires or their brief warrants. Their arguments are unpersuasive and we find the assignments of error purportedly brought forward thereunder to be totally lacking in merit.\nVI.\nAppellants next contend the findings are legally insufficient to support the EMC\u2019s conclusions of law. They argue essentially that the EMC is required to make findings on each of the seven factors listed under G.S. 162A-7(c) and that those findings must support a conclusion that the proposed project is \u201cconsistent with the maximum beneficial use of the water resources of the State giving paramount consideration to the statewide effect of the proposed project rather than its purely local effect.\u201d Appellants claim that the findings on three of those factors \u2014\n(1) The necessity of the proposed project;\n(2) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the proposed project to the present beneficial use of water in the affected watershed and resulting damages to present beneficial users;\n(5) The feasibility of alternative sources of supply to the petitioning authority and the comparative cost thereof;\n\u2014 are insufficient to support the conclusion that Cane Creek is the best project. We disagree.\nG.S. 162A-7(c) requires only that the EMC \u201cspecifically consider\u201d the listed factors. Neither the statute nor our earlier decision in this case requires the EMC to make findings regarding each factor. See In re EMC, supra. Nevertheless, making those findings is a means of insuring that each factor is specifically considered and we endorse this approach, though we do not require that it be followed. Appellants\u2019 argument consists in part of a contention that the findings do not accurately reflect the picture presented by the evidence. We have already considered this contention and have already determined in part V, above, that the findings are adequately supported in the record. Further discussion of this issue would serve no useful purpose.\nWith regard to whether the findings reflect adequate consideration by the EMC of the factors listed in G.S. 162A-7(c), our review of the record shows affirmatively that they do. We previously discussed, in part II, how water quality, though not a listed factor, had obvious importance and noted, in part III, that it was thoroughly considered by the EMC. In part IV, we noted that the factor of cost received a similarly thorough consideration. With regard to the remaining factors, we hold that the EMC\u2019s decision reflects adequate consideration.\nFindings 5 through 11 are contained in a section of the decision designated \u201cNecessity of Project.\u201d Those findings discuss the history of the water shortage problem in OWASA\u2019s service area and note the projected demand. Clearly they support the conclusion that an additional water supply is needed. There is no requirement that the EMC find with regard to this factor that the proposed project is the only one that will meet this need, as appellants seem to argue. Rather, this factor appears to be designed to insure that a need exists and that the proposed project is capable of meeting it. The EMC\u2019s findings reflect the correct interpretation of that factor.\nParalleling the statute, the next section of the decision is entitled \u201cStorage and Conservation of Water.\u201d It contains 3 findings. In essence, these findings state that the Cane Creek reservoir will have a storage capacity of 3 billion gallons with a safe daily yield of 10 million gallons that would not otherwise be utilized; and further that the Cane Creek reservoir would provide water of a quality that could not be matched by Haw River or Jordan Lake. Clearly, these findings address G.S. 162A-7(c)(2).\nRegarding the detriment of the proposed project to present and potential beneficial uses of water in the watershed and danger to users, the EMC made 3 findings to the effect that the relatively insignificant detriment would be offset by the benefits that would result. Appellants argue that these findings give insufficient consideration to the socio-economic impacts on the Cane Creek community, directly disregarding the previous mandate of this Court in In re EMC, supra. While not contained in this section, the EMC did make findings regarding the socio-economic impact and included them under the section entitled \u201cOther Factors Producing Maximum Beneficial Use.\u201d Those findings note that there will be unavoidable losses of forested land and land presently given over to farming activities; that portions of several farms will be inundated; that one family will have to move; and that the closing of state roads would inconvenience some of the affected people. The EMC further found, consistent with appellants\u2019 argument, that the other alternatives have a lesser likelihood of community disruptions or relocations. In our opinion, these findings reflect a consideration of the evidence on these points adequate to satisfy the statute and the mandate of In re EMC, supra. This question is discussed further in part VII, infra.\nThe EMC\u2019s findings regarding the feasibility of alternatives and the comparative costs were thoroughly discussed in part IV. They require no further discussion here except to reiterate that the cost of GAC treatment was viewed by OWASA as necessary for any of the Haw River or Jordan Lake alternatives to be feasible.\nThe section of the EMC\u2019s decision entitled \u201cDetriment From Use of Alternatives to Present and Potential Beneficial Uses of Water in Their Watershed\u201d contains 8 findings. These findings address primarily the differences in water quality among the feasible alternatives, an issue that was thoroughly discussed in part III above. We note here only that the use of any of the Jordan Lake or Haw River alternatives would have a detrimental effect on the quality of OWASA\u2019s raw water supply. Additionally, the EMC found that none of the other alternatives would create an additional supply of water of the volume of the proposed Cane Creek reservoir.\nUnder the \u201cOther Factors Contributing to Maximum Beneficial Use\u201d section, which contains 24 findings, the EMC discusses the socio-economic and environmental impact of the Cane Creek reservoir project. On the basis of the record, these were clearly the most thoroughly debated points and were the focus of much attention from all sides. We remanded this case when it was first appealed in part for more thorough consideration of these issues. The essence of the EMC\u2019s findings is that there will be some unavoidable impacts associated with the project that would not be associated with the others. The socio-economic displacement was viewed as minor and the project was found to have an effective package for mitigating environmental damage. The overall benefits to be gained from the use of Cane Creek to meet OWASA\u2019s water supply needs were found to outweigh the negative impacts of the project.\nThe final two factual sections of the EMC\u2019s decision include two findings, more properly labeled conclusions, (1) that the Cane Creek project in adding 3 billion gallons to the State\u2019s water supply would be consistent with the maximum beneficial use of State water resources, and (2) that the proposal was consistent with the State water resources planning policy.\nWe think that the EMC\u2019s findings indicate that all of the factors listed under G.S. 162A-7(c) received the \u201cspecific consideration\u201d that the EMC was required to give them. In addition, the EMC gave thorough consideration to factors that were not specifically listed, but were nevertheless of great importance to a sound determination. Appellants\u2019 contention is without merit.\nVII.\nBased on its findings, the EMC made the following substantive conclusions of law:\n3. The project proposed by OWASA is necessary to address its water needs and will promote the storage and conservation of water by means of its impoundment.\n4. The project proposed by QWASA will cause little detriment to present or potential beneficial uses of water in the Cane Creek watershed area, and will cause little resulting damage to present beneficial users.\n5. There are several alternatives to the project proposed by OWASA which may feasibly be implemented and these projects all have comparable costs.\n6. The principal alternative sources of supply \u2014 Haw River and Lake Jordan \u2014 would not increase the storage and conservation of water, would eliminate the addition of the Cane Creek supply source to the resources of the State, and would subject the OWASA service area to increased pollution potentials and risks from pollution inputs. The University Lake expansion alternative will not meet the water supply needs of OWASA.\n7. The project proposed by OWASA will preserve and utilize a well-protected water supply resource, and will promote the beneficial use of those waters, consistent with the water use policies of the State.\n8. The project proposed by OWASA is consistent with the maximum beneficial use of the water resources in the State giving paramount consideration to the statewide effects of the project, rather than to its purely local or regional effect.\n9.OWASA is entitled to the certificate pursuant to N.C.G.S. 162A-7 authorizing it to institute proceedings in the nature of eminent domain to acquire water, water rights or lands having water rights attached thereto.\nWith one exception, appellants\u2019 argument that these conclusions are not supported by the findings is vague and unsupported by legal authority. That exception is appellants\u2019 final argument, in which they contend that the findings regarding the closing of the state roads and resulting inconvenience do not support the EMC\u2019s fourth conclusion. They argue essentially that the EMC, or several members of it, misunderstood the EMC\u2019s fact finding function and its ability to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of the project. Appellants support this argument by reference to a discussion which occurred just before voting on the motion to adopt the hearing examiner\u2019s recommended decision, as amended. Several EMC members, including the chairman and the hearing examiner, made remarks indicating their concern over the closing of two state roads that would apparently result from the project. The members discussed among themselves and with the attorneys the steps that the EMC could take to mitigate this damage or to insure further inquiry and appropriate action by the Orange County Commissioners. Appellants contend that these remarks indicate (1) that the EMC misconstrued In re EMC, supra, to the end that local socio-economic and environmental impacts were inadequately addressed and (2) that the EMC was misinformed as to its ability to condition issuance of the certificate of authority on further action. We disagree.\nAs already noted, the record indicates that ample opportunity was allowed for presentation of evidence on these issues and the EMC\u2019s findings indicate a thorough consideration of that evidence. That the findings reflect that some detriment, including inundation of two roads and displacement of one family, will result from the project is not inconsistent with the conclusion that that detriment would be relatively minor.\nWe further think that the hearing examiner\u2019s remarks regarding the EMC\u2019s responsibility to consider the State\u2019s interests, far from being a misapprehension of the law, indicate a proper understanding of the EMC\u2019s function as well as the policy of G.S. 162A-7(c) that the interests of the State be \u201cparamount\u201d to local concerns. Finally, while some Commission members expressed a desire to issue a resolution to the county commissioners or take other action regarding the inundation of the roads, no request was made for an investigation into this possibility. The motion before the EMC was unambiguous. Had the individual members\u2019 reservations on any point been strong enough, they could have voted against the motion. G.S. 162A-7(c) allowed the EMC to grant a certificate in whole or in part or to deny it altogether. Appellants\u2019 contention on this point is without merit.\nAppellants contend briefly and without authority that the EMC acted outside of its statutory authority in issuing the certificate and thereby violated the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. This purported argument is merely a reiteration of appellants\u2019 similarly phrased assignment of error and does not effectively present the constitutional question for review. N.C. App. R. 28(a); Martin v. Housing Corp., 277 N.C. 29, 175 S.E. 2d 665 (1970); Sykes v. Clayton, Comr. of Revenue, 274 N.C. 398, 163 S.E. 2d 775 (1968). We therefore decline to consider it.\nAs to the remainder of appellants\u2019 argument that the facts do not support the legal conclusions, we find it unpersuasive. Our careful review of the record shows that the EMC\u2019s decision parallels G.S. 162A-7(c) in its consideration of relevant factors. We think that the conclusions drawn from the findings were proper and that the EMC\u2019s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Appellants\u2019 contention in this regard is without merit.\nThe order of the Superior Court affirming the order granting OWASA\u2019s request for the certificate of authority and dismissing the appeal of petitioners CCCA and Teer Farms, Inc. is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Corvette & Hassell, by Ted E. Corvette, Jr., for petitioner appellants.",
      "Thomas S. Erwin and Moore, Van Allen, Allen & Thigpen, by Charles D. Case, for respondent appellee.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley, for the Environmental Management Commission."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FINAL ORDER GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO G.S. SEC. 162A-7\nNo. 8510SC694\n(Filed 1 April 1986)\n1. Administrative Law 8 8\u2014 agency decision supported by substantial evidence \u2014 whole record test applicable\nThe whole record test applies only with respect to section 6 of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-51 (1973), that is, whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, and it does not apply to the other five sections of the statute.\n2. Waters and Watercourses 8 4\u2014 certification issued for water project \u2014 consideration of water quality proper\nThough water quality is not one of the factors specifically listed in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-7(c) to be considered by the Environmental Management Commission in issuing certification for a water project, it is not only a permissible consideration but also one that is important if not essential to the responsible exercise of the police power, and authority for considering that factor and any other which will produce the maximum beneficial use of water is given by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-7(c)(7).\n3. Waters and Watercourses 8 4\u2014 proposed water project \u2014 paramount consideration to statewide effect \u2014 consideration of local factors not precluded\nThe fact that the Environmental Management Commission is required to give paramount consideration to the statewide effect of a proposed water project does not preclude consideration by the Commission of local or regional factors.\n4. Waters and Watercourses 8 4\u2014 construction o\u00ed reservoir \u2014 consideration of federal and state water quality standards\nIn an administrative proceeding for a certificate of authority to acquire certain lands by eminent domain for construction of a reservoir, there was no merit to appellants\u2019 contention that the Environmental Management Commission erred because it failed to consider federal and state water quality standards in making its findings but instead merely compared the alternatives, since the Final Environmental Impact Statements prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Environmental Management indicated clearly that the feasible alternatives were thoroughly evaluated in terms of the applicable standards and in accordance with the methods prescribed in applicable regulations.\n5. Waters and Watercourses \u00a7 4\u2014 construction of reservoir \u2014 findings as to water quality \u2014 statement of evidentiary basis unnecessary\nIn its decision issuing a certificate of authority to proceed with construction of a water project, the Environmental Management Commission was not required to state the evidentiary basis for its ultimate findings regarding water quality, since N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-7, which lists the factors the Commission is specifically directed to consider, makes no provision regarding how extensive the findings on any one factor are required to be or what evidence is required to support the findings made with regard to them.\n6. Waters and Watercourses 8 4\u2014 construction of reservoir \u2014 water quality findings \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a proceeding for a certificate of authority to acquire certain lands by eminent domain for construction of a reservoir, water quality findings were amply supported by the evidence where state and federal agencies conducted numerous tests in the course of preparing the Environmental Impact, Statement; several university and government sponsored surveys and studies on the quality of water in the drainage areas had been conducted; area water quality had been more or less continuously monitored pursuant to various government programs; and more than 66,000 individual water quality observations had been made of the creek in question and other alternatives since 1966.\n7. Administrative Law 8 4\u2014 ultimate finding based on sound evidentiary foundation\nThere was no merit to appellants\u2019 contention that a particular finding of fact by the Environmental Management Commission was a conclusory finding based on unsupported assumptions, since the challenged finding was actually an ultimate finding based on a sound evidentiary foundation.\n8. Waters and Watercourses 8 4\u2014 proposed reservoir \u2014 cost of alternatives \u2014 determination proper\nIn determining the cost of alternatives to respondent\u2019s proposed water project, the Environmental Management Commission did not err in including the cost of granular activated carbon treatment to control taste and odor and the level of synthetic organic chemicals, though such treatment was not legally required and was not required to render water from the alternative sources potable, and though such treatment significantly increased the cost of the alternatives, since public health concerns warranted the inclusion of the cost of the carbon treatment as a component of the total cost of the alternatives.\n9.Evidence \u00a7 47.1\u2014 proposed reservoir \u2014 expert testimony \u2014 evidentiary basis\nIn a proceeding for a certificate of authority for construction of a water project, there was no merit to appellants\u2019 contention that much of the expert testimony presented by respondent was incompetent because it was speculative and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation, since the experts were not required to base their opinions on facts within their personal knowledge or on evidence in the record before the court.\n10. Waters and Watercourses \u00a7 4\u2014 construction of water project \u2014 factors specifically considered before issuance of certificate\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-7(c) requires only that the Environmental Management Commission \u201cspecifically consider\u201d the listed factors in determining whether a certificate for construction of a water project should be issued, and nothing requires the Commission to make findings regarding each factor. The findings in this case reflected adequate consideration by the Commission of the factors listed in the statute.\n11. Waters and Watercourses \u00a7 4\u2014 construction of reservoir \u2014 little detriment to area water users \u2014 sufficiency of findings to support conclusion\nThere was no merit to appellants\u2019 contention that findings regarding the closing of state roads and removal of one family from their home did not support the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the water project in question would cause little detriment to present or potential beneficial users of water in the area, since the fact that some detriment would result from the project was not inconsistent with the conclusion that the detriment would be minor; the hearing examiner\u2019s remarks regarding the Commission\u2019s responsibility to consider the State\u2019s interests indicated a proper understanding of the Commission\u2019s function as well as the policy of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-7(c) that the interests of the State be paramount to local concerns; and while some Commission members expressed a desire to issue a resolution to the county commissioners or take other action regarding the inundation of the roads, no request was made for an investigation into this possibility.\nAppeal by petitioners Cane Creek Conservation Authority and Teer Farms, Inc. from Barnette, Judge. Judgment entered 25 January 1985 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 1986.\nThis is a review of an administrative proceeding in which respondent Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) seeks a certificate of authority to acquire certain lands by eminent domain for construction of a reservoir. The proceeding was initiated when OWASA filed its petition for the certificate with the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on 21 December 1977. The circumstances prompting OWASA to take that action are more fully described in this Court\u2019s earlier opinion in the same case. See In re Appeal from Environmental Management Commission, 53 N.C. App. 135, 280 S.E. 2d 520 (1981). The Cane Creek Conservation Authority (CCCA) and several other individuals intervened in opposition to the petition and the matter progressed through the administrative channels.\nOn appeal from a Superior Court judgment upholding the EMC\u2019s order granting OWASA\u2019s petition, this Court remanded the cause to the EMC with directions that it consider an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10. Accordingly, an EIS was prepared by the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management. Because the proposed project also would require a federal permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344, and EIS was prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. A second evidentiary hearing was held on 29 November to 3 December 1982. The EMC adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer and issued a Final Order of Certification on 26 March 1983.\nThe opponents of the project again petitioned for judicial review. The Superior Court found the EMC\u2019s order insufficient to support a judicial review under G.S. 150A-51 and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Accordingly, the EMC ordered a reconsideration of OWASA\u2019s petition. No additional evidence was taken but the parties were allowed to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the EMC. The hearing officer thereafter prepared a recommended decision and submitted it to the full Commission along with the written objections and exceptions of the parties. The Commission reconsidered OWASA\u2019s petition and issued a Final Order of Certification on 24 October 1983.\nThe opponents of the project again petitioned for judicial review of the EMC\u2019s order. After a hearing on 7 September 1984, the Wake County Superior Court found the EMC\u2019s final order to be supported by competent material and substantial evidence in view of the whole record as submitted. The order was accordingly affirmed and CCCA and Teer Farms, Inc. appealed.\nCorvette & Hassell, by Ted E. Corvette, Jr., for petitioner appellants.\nThomas S. Erwin and Moore, Van Allen, Allen & Thigpen, by Charles D. Case, for respondent appellee.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley, for the Environmental Management Commission."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 55
}
