On Wednesday, Sept. 28, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a state Court of Appeals decision, which concluded the upper portion of Limbo Creek meets the statutory definition of a public water and therefore an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a proposed drainage project is required. 

The state Supreme Court decision is a disappointment to Renville County landowners and the county ditch authority, which has been trying to complete a drainage maintenance project in Renville County for several years. 

The Court declined to answer the broad, underlying question that environmental groups presented in the case: whether the classification of a water body is based on the Public Waters Inventory (PWI) or the statutory definition. 

The affected landowners, the county, and the ag groups argued that the PWI is a complete list of public waters and therefore it is the controlling authority. The environmental groups argued that the statutory definition is broader than the PWI and is therefore the controlling authority. 

In February 2022, the Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) and several other ag groups submitted an amicus brief noting the serious consequences that determining the classification of a water body based on the statutory definition, rather than the well-established PWI, could have. The brief noted how a ruling that classification is based on the statutory definition could cause uncertainty for all future drainage projects and could even jeopardize the constitutionality of the state’s 2015 buffer law. The appeals court had determined that the absence of a water body from the PWI did not preclude a water body from being defined as a public water and subject to environmental review. 

While the environmental groups were victorious in this case, they were not successful in convincing the court to weigh in on a broader question that would apply statewide in drainage and buffer map cases. In fact, the Court said more than once that it was specifically not deciding that question. 

The Supreme Court did not necessarily agree with the lower court; it only decided that the lower court “did not err.” (This would be similar to a video replay not providing enough evidence to overturn a referee’s call on the field so the call ends up standing). Even if the Supreme Court had agreed that the PWI controls regulation, in this particular case, the evidence was not conclusive enough to establish whether the upper portion is or ever was part of the PWI. There is some evidence that it is and some evidence that it isn’t. Because of the unique and complicated set of facts in this particular dispute, the Supreme Court declined to answer the broad question. Instead, the court’s ruling is very narrow and only applies to the upper portion of Limbo Creek in Renville County. Therefore, it appears the ruling does not have a statewide impact, and to that extent, the decision is a major victory for the landowners and the ag groups.

Statement from MCGA President Bryan Biegler 

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s Limbo Creek decision is disappointing to the Renville County landowners working to clean the outlet of Renville County Ditch 77 into the upper portion of the creek. Farmers, local landowners, drainage authorities, and technical experts know best what projects work best for them, and it’s disappointing that the court declined to see the merits of their case. 

However, MCGA appreciates that the court declined to rule on the question of whether the definition of “public waters,” not the Public Waters Inventory, is the controlling factor on whether more regulation is needed for a project. The state Public Waters Inventory was completed following a comprehensive process that included numerous public hearings and opportunities for landowners and environmental groups to challenge waters they believe should be included or excluded from the final inventory. We are heartened that the state Supreme Court agreed “it is the duty of the Legislature to clarify the relationship between the inventory and the statutory definition of public waters.” 

Due to the leadership of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, and our agricultural partners, the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Minnesota Farm Bureau, and Minnesota Farmers Union, the court declined to answer the broader question of relying solely on the public waters statutory definition due to the significant consequences outlined in our “friend of the court” brief.