Please visit my author page at amazon.com
White Bear Lake Recreation Assn. et al., v. Minnesota Dep't of Natural Resources, et al. MN navigable waters
Plaintiffs brought this case after the water levels of White Bear Lake reached historic lows in the early 2010's. They sued the DNR for pollution and impairment of the lake, arising out of alleged mismanagement of the groundwater apportionment process. The claims were based on Minn. Stat. 116B.03 and the common-law public trust doctrine.
Since recording of water levels were first recorded in 1924, the levels have spanned a range of more than 7 feet, hitting a low point in 2013. The lake has no inlets or outlets and has a small watershed. Levels depend upon precipitation, evaporation, and groundwater. In particular, the lake is hydrologically connected to the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, the most commonly used aquifier used for drinking water in the Twin Cities.
Under Minn. Stat. 103G.255 et seq., the DNR is charged with managing water appropriations though a permitting process. The plaintiffs alleged that permits were issued in a manner that violated an environmental statute, Minn. Stat. 116B.03. They City of White Bear Lake and the Town of White Bear were later added as defendants for their pumping of water from the aquifer.
The case ultimately found its way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. At issue was whether plaintiffs had stated a claim. The high court turned first to whether the plaintiffs had stated a claim under the statute. The court noted that the case hinged on statutory construction.
Under the statute, any person may maintain a civil action for the protection of natural resources in the state for "pollution, impairment, or destruction". The court stressed that the statute specified that this could be done by "any conduct." Given this broad language, the court held that administrative action is within the terms of the statute. It further held that nothing in the statute insulated this "conduct" from liability.
The court next turned to the common-law claim under the public trust doctrine. The states are charged with a duty over th navigable waters of the United States, and the state holds title to those waters. Under the doctrine, the state has a duty to prevserve those waters for benefit of the public.
That doctrine did not apply here, however, since there was no "private interruption and encroachment" over the waters. The court did not deem it appropriate to extend the judicary's role over a subject that is already highly regulated by the legislature.
Justice Anderson dissented in part, and would have barred the action under the statute, arguing that there was no "conduct" by the DNR within in the meaning of the statute. Chief Justice Gildea joined in that dissent.
No. A18-0750 (Minn. Jul. 15, 2020).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com