Legal Opinion · Dissent
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 22, 2019No. A18-0750Published
1Dissent
BRATVOLD, Judge (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent. Based on the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 116B.03 (2018), the "no-action" provision in the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) does not bar a citizen suit against a state agency that has violated Minnesota law by its own conduct and has materially adversely affected the environment, here, White Bear Lake (lake) and the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer (aquifer). Also, the public-trust doctrine protects navigable waters, including White Bear Lake and its lake bed, therefore, respondents' common-law claim is authorized. Because the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun ClubSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- State v. Longyear Holding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.