Does a watershed district have the authority to acquire state lands through eminent domain?

In the Matter of the Commissioner's Order Denying Permit Application 93-1024; Project No. 19 of the Red Lake Watershed District, 527 N.W.2d 173 (Minn.App. 1995).

Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) devised the "Maple Lake Project" to augment lake levels in Maple Lake and to bolster flood-control measures in the area near the lake. The project involved construction of a dike on state-owned property and would result in occasional flooding of substantial portions of the Polk Wildlife Management Area. The RLWD conducted procedures and hearings as required by state law, evaluated the project's costs and benefits, and approved the project.

RLWD made no effort, however, to condemn or otherwise acquire the specific state land targeted by the project. Instead, the RLWD applied to the DNR for a permit to begin construction of the project. The DNR denied the permit request. The RLWD requested a contested hearing before the DNR Commissioner, where an administrative law judge recommended summary dismissal. The Commissioner agreed, citing the RLWD's inability to acquire property rights necessary for construction of the pond.

On appeal, the RLWD argued that Minn. Stat. §§ 103D.715 and 103E.025 gave watershed districts the power to take or damage state land for the project. The court disagreed, however, holding that that Chapter 103E applies only to drainage projects, and that the specific language of 103D.715 only modified the language in 103E. Since the purpose of the Maple Lake Project was not drainage, the watershed district did not have the power to take or damage state land for the project under Chapter 103E.

The court noted that the district has eminent domain powers under Chapter 103D as well, but that Chapter 103D lacked the expedited procedures and enhanced powers of Chapter 103E. The court also found that the district had not demonstrated that it had complied with the procedural steps required under Chapter 103D. (Citing Robertson v. Belle Creek Watershed District, 255 N.W.2d 236, 240 (Minn. 1977).

As a result, the court upheld the commissioner's ruling holding that the watershed district could not use its Chapter 103E powers to gain the rights to property except in drainage projects.

^ top