Must a local government enforce the Wetlands Conservation Act when enforcement activities directly conflict with other legal obligations to maintain drainage systems? McLeod County Board of Commissioners as the Drainage Authority for McLeod County Ditch No. 8 v. The State of Minnesota and the Department of Natural Resources, 549 N.W.2d 630 (Minn.App. 1996) Under the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), the DNR and the McLeod County commissioners entered into a stipulation wherein the parties stipulated the 20 year surface water level of Bullhead Lake to be at a 96.7 foot elevation. Under WCA, no wetlands may be drained which have been in existence for more than 20 years, or which have been designated as constituting the 20 year surface level. Subsequently, the county commenced a repair project on a ditch, "Lateral No. 3," in order to improve drainage for adjacent farms. The county undertook this repair project in order to satisfy its duty under Minnesota law to maintain the ditch in "the same condition as it was when originally constructed." Id. at 633, citing Fischer v. Town of Albin, 104 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. 1960) (note that there is no statutory obligation to maintain ditches). Shortly after construction began, the DNR issued a "cease and desist" order upon finding that the proposed repairs would drop the level of Bullhead Lake below the 96.7 foot level. The DNR offered to rescind the order only if the county could otherwise maintain the level of the lake at 96.7 feet or if the county could otherwise construct replacement wetlands at its own expense. The county brought suit against the state and the DNR on behalf of those landowners funding the ditch system. The county alleged an unconstitutional taking of the landowners' property right to have ditches maintained and asked for relief in the form of an injunctive order against the enforcement of the WCA. Pointing to its obligation under Fischer to maintain the ditch in "the same condition as it was when originally constructed," the county argued that it should not be required to enforce the state law in contradiction with this duty. Id. at 633. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the "the county has an obligation to maintain a ditch in manner consistent with the policies established by the legislature in the WCA." Id. at 633-634. The county's request for injunctive relief was denied, and it was ordered to enforce the WCA. Responding to oral argument inferences that "McLeod and other counties are in opposition to the [WCA] . . . and may choose not to implement or enforce it," the court held such action would amount to an abandonment of the county's obligations and that its "remedy lies with the legislature." Id. at 634. It is important to note that the county did not request any monetary award for a taking. Because of this, the court did not decide the issue of whether WCA's impact on the property owner's right to have a ditch maintained in the manner in which it was originally constructed resulted in a taking which required compensation. The court did state that the injunctive relief which the county sought could not be awarded even if a taking had occurred.
|
||
 |
||