May courts change the terms and conditions of permits issued by watershed districts? Greenwood v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1995 WL 91838 (Minn.App.) Kee Construction, Inc (Kee) applied to the Minnehaha Watershed District (MCWD) for a dredging permit in connection with the excavation of a navigational channel in the inlet of St. Alban's Bay on Lake Minnetonka in the City of Greenwood. Following hearings on the permit application, MCWD determining that the project did not have the potential for significant environmental impact and issued the permit. The City of Greenwood brought suit contesting the issuance of the permit, asking the court for a declaratory judgment. The district court found the permit valid and granted summary judgment for the defendant MCWD, but imposed conditions on the permit and the activities it authorized. The court set specific dates when dredging activities must be done, required specific descriptions of work authorized, and also stated that any violation by Kee of the MCWD rules or its permit would result in MCWD being held to have violated of the district court's order. MCWD appealed, arguing that the district court exceeded its scope of review by imposing conditions on the permit and by ordering that the MCWD would be held in violation of the court's order if Kee failed to comply with MCWD rules or the permit itself. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, removing the conditions imposed by the court. Addressing the specific conditions on the permit, the court held that decisions by administrative agencies are subject only to limited review. Specifically, courts may only decide whether the agency had authority with respect to a specific matter, whether it acted under the correct theory of applicable law, and whether the facts found by the agency are supported by the evidence. In short, the court could declare the existing permit valid or invalid as issued. The court agreed with MCWD that decisions about the particulars regarding how to reduce the impact of dredging on the environment are non-judicial functions. The court ruled that when courts impose such conditions, they improperly substitute their judgment for the responsible administrative agency. Id. at *2. The court also agreed with MCWD that the district court exceeded its authority when it ordered that the district would be held in contempt if Kee violated the terms of its permit. Since Kee had not begun work, much less violated the terms of the permit, such a question was purely speculative. Minnesota courts are prohibited from delivering opinions advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical events or states of facts. Id. at *2, citing Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 290 N.W. 802, 804 (1940).
|
||
 |
||