Is impact to a downstream public water sufficient to require a DNR permit for a crossing not located on a public water? Gillette v. Peterson (Minn. App. A03-997) (June 1, 2004) (unpublished). The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that a landowner exceeded his right to “reasonable use” when he installed creek crossings without evaluating their impact, the crossings backed water up on the property of his upstream neighbor and caused the water to stagnate, and other methods such as ponding existed to mitigate flooding of his property. The Court also found that although the creek was not designated by the Department of Natural Resources as a public water until further downstream, a DNR permit was required for the road crossings because the crossings had the effect of changing or diminishing the course or current of the downstream water within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §103G.245, subdivision 1(2). Full text of ruling
|
||
 |
||