Specifically, the public trust compels the state duly to consider the cumulative impact of existing and proposed diversions on trust purposes and to implement reasonable measures to mitigate this impact, including the use of alternative sources. See, e.g., Save Ourselves, 452 So.2d at 1157-58; Payne, 312 A.2d at 94; Kootenai, 671 P.2d at 1092-93; Hamilton v. Diamond, 349 N.Y.S.2d 146, 148-49 (N.Y.App.Div. 197 3), appeal denied, 34 N.Y.2d 516 (1974). The trust also requires planning and decisionmaking from a global, long-term perspective.

Appeal from (3d dept.: 42 A.D.2d 465) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

Based on the record, we conclude that the commission fully complied with the requirements of Public Service Law § 126 (1) in analyzing the need for the project, its probable environmental impacts, and the manner in which those impacts could be reduced. Moreover, we find that the commission's procedure in according great weight to environmental issues and in undertaking a careful balancing of the relevant evidence fully comported with the spirit and substance of the Environmental Conservation Law and of N Y Constitution, article XIV, § 4 (see generally, Matter of Hamilton v Diamond, 42 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 34 N.Y.2d 516). The petitioners further contend that the commission erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the issue of the applicability of local laws and ordinances from PASNY to the individual municipalities, and they likewise argue that PASNY failed to satisfy its burden with regard to this issue. We disagree.

The record discloses the hearing was held before the Mayor and the members of the board of trustees and that they rendered their decision after listening to the testimony of all the witnesses. They were thus familiar with the issues and had the opportunity to render an informed decision (cf. Matter of Taub v. Pirnie, 3 N.Y.2d 188, 195; Matter of Weekes v. O'Connell, 304 N.Y. 259; Matter of Hamilton v. Diamond, 42 A.D.2d 465). We also reject petitioner's argument that the decision itself is devoid of any grounds to support its findings of fact. A review of the decision discloses that separate findings of fact were made for each charge of which petitioner was found guilty, and that they not only amply apprised petitioner of the basis for the decision, but also permit intelligent judicial review.

The school district did comply with the commissioner's order as so construed by introducing testimony before the hearing examiner which demonstrated that it had considered alternative sites and that, from its standpoint, the proposed site was the most appropriate. The petitioners also argue that the departmental rules which establish standards for the issuance of the instant kind of permit are inconsistent with the policy of the State as contained in the New York Constitution (art XIV, § 4) and Environmental Conservation Law (ECL 1-0101), but appellate authority has ruled otherwise (Matter of Hamilton v Diamond, 42 A.D.2d 465, 467).