Goerke Family P'ship v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist., A14–0603.
| Decision Date | 15 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. A14–0603.,A14–0603. |
| Citation | 857 N.W.2d 50 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GOERKE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, Donald Shelstad, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAC QUI PARLE–YELLOW BANK WATERSHED DISTRICT, Respondent, William Croatt, Respondent. |
Dennis H. Simpson, Quarnstrom & Doering, P.A., Marshall, MN, for appellant.
Jason J. Kuboushek, Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Bloomington, MN, for respondent Lac qui Parle–Yellow Bank Watershed District.
Matthew P. Franzese, Traverse County Attorney, Alexandria, MN, for respondent William Croatt.
Considered and decided by PETERSON, Presiding Judge; RODENBERG, Judge; and REILLY, Judge.
Appellant landowner brought this declaratory-judgment action in district court challenging respondent watershed district's approval of respondent landowner's application for a drainage permit. Following a remand to the watershed district's board of managers for a determination whether the proposed drainage system would be a reasonable use, the district court affirmed the approval of the drainage permit. Appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in remanding the reasonable-use issue to the watershed-district board, and (2) the drainage system should not be allowed because it expands the slope and highway easements burdening appellant's property. We affirm.
Respondent William Croatt applied to respondent Lac qui Parle–Yellow Bank Watershed District for a drainage permit for an agricultural tiling system that would drain about 60 acres of land in the northeast quarter of section 11 in Arena Township. The water drained from the 60 acres would be directed to a pumping station that would pump the water to a grove in the northeast corner of section 11 at the intersection of 270th Street and County State Aid Highway 17. From the grove, the water would flow north in the west ditch of highway 17 for about one-quarter mile, east through a culvert, and into an established ditch system.
The proposed drainage system was addressed at meetings of the watershed-district board of managers during the spring and summer of 2011. Downstream property owners, including appellant Goerke Family Partnership, objected to the permit application. The downstream property owners were concerned that the culvert could not handle the water from the drainage system and that the amount of water draining onto their properties would increase. The board declined to approve Croatt's permit application due to the opposition of the downstream property owners.
In response to that opposition, Croatt contacted Professional Engineer Erik Jones, who reviewed the proposed system and concluded that the ditch along highway 17 had adequate capacity to handle the drained water and that an adequate outlet existed downstream. The board requested additional information from Jones about the water flowing through the culvert. Jones concluded that Croatt's proposed drainage system would not change the amount of water flowing through the culvert. The county engineer signed the application, indicating that the proposed drainage system would not affect the roadway. After receiving this additional information, the board approved Croatt's permit application.
Appellant brought this declaratory-judgment action in district court challenging the board's approval of Croatt's permit application. Appellant asserted that the board acted improperly in approving the permit because appellant had not granted a drainage easement over its property along highway 17. Croatt moved for summary judgment. The district court denied summary judgment on the ground that a question of material fact existed on “whether draining water from Croatt's land into the [highway] 17 road ditch is a ‘reasonable use’ as that term has been developed under Minnesota case law.” Croatt requested reconsideration because the summary-judgment order did not address the procedure for resolving the fact issue. The district court granted reconsideration and, on reconsideration, remanded the case to the watershed-district board “for specific factual findings on whether granting the proposed permit constitutes a reasonable use.” On remand, the board found that the proposed drainage system would be a reasonable use. The district court rejected appellant's argument that the remand was improper and affirmed the board's decision to issue the permit to Croatt because the decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. This appeal followed.
I. Did the district court err in allowing reconsideration and remanding the issue of reasonable use to the watershed-district board of managers?
II. Did the board of managers err in determining that the drainage system would be a reasonable use and granting the permit application?
“Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the court, which will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11. We review a district court's decision to allow a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. See In re Welfare of S.M.E., 725 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn.2007) (); Peterson v. Hinz, 605 N.W.2d 414, 417–18 (Minn.App.2000) (), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2000).
The initial order denying summary judgment did not specify the procedure for determining whether the proposed drainage system would be a reasonable use. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing reconsideration.
Remand to watershed-district board of managers
Appellant argues that, in a declaratory-judgment action, a plaintiff is entitled to a trial, and the district court did not have authority to remand the case to the watershed-district board of managers for a determination regarding the reasonable-use doctrine. We disagree. The Minnesota Watershed Law, Minn.Stat. §§ 103D.001 –925 (2012) states: ” Minn.Stat. § 103D.537(a) (emphasis added).
In Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, which involved a challenge to a city council's denial of an application for rezoning, the district court declined to conduct a trial and limited its review to the record before the city council. 313 N.W.2d 409, 412–13 (Minn.1981). On appeal, the supreme court held that “[r]eview of a decision on rezoning may be obtained by a declaratory judgment action” and that the parties were entitled to a trial and could present evidence in addition to that presented to the municipal body, provided that the evidence was relevant to issues raised before and considered by the municipal body. Id. at 416. The court noted that a city council often “conducts its hearings in informal fashion, with no accurate verbatim record kept and with relatively few remarks in its minutes to suffice as its findings of fact and conclusions.” Id. at 415. The purpose of the trial was to determine whether there was a legally sufficient basis for the municipal body's decision. Id. at 418–19.
But in Swanson v. City of Bloomington, which involved a challenge to a city council's denial of an application to subdivide a residential lot, the supreme court limited the holding in Honn . 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.1988). After stating that Honn did not require “a trial or augmentation of the record in every case,” the supreme court explained the procedure for review of a permit decision:
The supreme court addressed the issue of a remand to a zoning authority to further develop the record in Earthburners, Inc. v. Cnty. of Carlton, which involved a declaratory-judgment action challenging a county board's denial of a conditional-use permit. 513 N.W.2d 460 (Minn.1994). Because the county board's record indicated that its decision was premature and the decision did not show that the board considered the relevant ordinance criteria, the supreme court remanded to the board so that it could reconsider the permit application. Id. at 461–63. The supreme court explained:
[W]e have been reluctant to allow local boards an opportunity after the fact to substantiate or justify earlier decisions. However, where, as here, the board has failed to discharge its responsibilities in connection with this application, we are compelled to offer it the opportunity to do so and to develop a record to allow meaningful appellate review. However, to prevent any unfairness to the applicant, the board must confine its inquiry to those issues raised in earlier proceedings before the planning commission and county board while allowing adequate opportunity for a meaningful discussion of those issues.
Id. at 463 (citation omitted).
Minnesota law permits a property owner to drain surface waters onto another's land if the elements of the reasonable-use doctrine are met. Kral v. Boesch, 557 N.W.2d 597, 598–99 (Minn.App.1996). Therefore, because the watershed-district board did not consider the reasonable-use doctrine and the record was inadequate to allow meaningful appellate review by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. Robideau Constr., Inc. v. Hiber
...court's decision to allow a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion." Goerke Family P'ship v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist., 857 N.W.2d 50, 52-53 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing In re Welfare of S.M.E., 725 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn. 2007)). Under the Minnesota General Rules......
-
Stalland v. City of Scandia
... ... Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (the watershed ... district), ... summary judgment de novo. Commerce Bank v. W. Bend Mut ... Ins. Co. , 870 N.W.2d ... 1981); see ... also Goerke Fam. P'ship v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank ... Watershed Dist. , 857 N.W.2d 50, 55 (Minn.App. 2014) ... ...
-
Croix Holdings, LLC v. City of Newport, A21-0630
... ... 1981); see ... also Goerke Fam. P'ship v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank ... Watershed Dist. , 857 N.W.2d 50, 55 (Minn.App. 2014) ... ...
-
Legatt v. Legatt
...land if the elements of the reasonable-use doctrine are met." Goerke Family P'ship v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist., 857 N.W.2d 50, 54 (Minn. App. 2014). Under the reasonable-use doctrine, a landowner may divert surface water to another's land, even if some of the water would no......