Part of the Crop Management Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.

1. Glen Steele, whose family had been farming on land near Huntington, MN for about 35 years, had noticed recently that the old tile system on their land needed replacement. The existing drainage system's pipes, installed in 1915, were breaking down. Excess water on their fields had caused neighboring farmers to suffer substantial crop loss as well, and Steele knew it was time for a change. Talking to his neighbors about the need for better drainage, Steele found that many agreed something had to be done to ensure the future success of croplands in their watershed. They organized meetings to discuss the issue, and decided to hire an engineer to design a drainage improvement project.

2. In November 1997, twelve petitioners agreed to sign a drainage petition, which was duly approved by the Northland County Board. The new system, projected to cost about $830,000, would be paid by the 26 property owners benefiting from the improvements. Steele saw the project as fairly routine, the type typically approved and constructed without a problem. He felt he had made a positive investment in the future of his farm. To his surprise, however, an organized and determined opposition to the project quickly arose.

3. The first opposition to the project came from neighbors who did not sign the petition, but were assessed a portion of the cost of the project. They claimed it threatened to damage a wetland on their property. Linda Reister, her husband Rick, and their two small children had recently moved into a house in the watershed area overlooking a small wetland that attracted birds and wildlife to the property. Linda's grandmother Marion Krause owned the land, so to Linda it was a familiar place. "That slough has been there since I was a child," she said, "To me, it's home." Although the family did not want to cause conflict with their neighbors, they were worried that the drainage project would damage the wetland. They decided to file an appeal in district court.

4. The Krauses contacted lawyers at Minnesota's Future Environment (MFE), a non-profit law firm based in Minneapolis, and the firm began to look into the case. MFE discovered that in addition to the wetland issue, the new system's outlet was directly upstream of a DNR-designated trout stream. MFE was concerned that the change in drainage caused by the proposed project would significantly increase flows to the stream. Higher peak flows potentially could increase stream bank erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient inputs to the trout stream, damaging its water quality and fish habitat. Before Steele knew it, MFE had filed a lawsuit to stop the project.

5. Steele disagreed with the lawsuit. "What we did was follow every rule to a 'T'," he stated. "We got the project ready to go, and then somebody steps in and tries to stop us on it." Steele and the other petitioners had not anticipated the lawsuit. "The only way the environmentalists could get in was to go piggyback on the Krauses," reasoned Steele, "They were the only ones who could appeal the project. The Krauses were pretty much trying to protect their own land, is all they were doing. They enjoy wetlands and wildlife, which all of us do, and that was... well, we underestimated them a little bit."

6. Regardless of the Krauses' reasons for getting involved in the lawsuit, Steele now had important decisions to make. He and the other petitioners were in a financially risky situa- tion. If a project fails under Minnesota drain- age law, each petitioner is still liable for all of the costs, including engineering fees, attor- neys' fees, and county auditors' fees. "If I were to change one thing," said Steele, "I would have addressed each person's needs right from the start."

7. As word of the lawsuit spread, public opposition to the project grew. Environmental groups including Trout Unlimited, Mankato Area Environmentalists, New Ulm Sport Fishermen, and the Coalition for a Clean Minnesota River all voiced opposition. Dennis Coleman, the engineer who designed the drainage project, claimed that it would improve farmland without endangering any wetlands. "The only way that dewatering of a wetland area could occur is if an individual chose to install tiles there, and that could be punishable by law," he said.

8. Linda Reister maintained that tile could affect a wetland even if it did not go directly through it. Dennis Coleman agreed, but argued that the Natural Resources Conservation Service had established setback distances to guard against such problems. Drainage improvement projects are required to comply with a number of guidelines intended to protect wetlands and downstream property owners. Coleman maintained that the project was in compliance with all legal guidelines. Even after hearing Coleman's arguments, the Krauses were insistent. They wanted legal documentation ensuring the safety of the wetland.

9. MFE focused their case on the trout stream, designated for protection because it was spring-fed and had trout-supporting habitat. However, Steele pointed out that the stream did not currently support a trout population. "There's never been a trout in the stream," said Steele.

10. When MFE demanded that the petitioners modify the project to avoid increased flows to the trout stream, Steele said, "Most farmers are pretty practical people, and we looked at that and said, you know... [Why should we] concede that to them for something that was never gonna be?" He did not believe the stream could be restored, and did not agree that the drainage project would damage it.

11. Reviewing the engineer's report, MFE found that the project proposed the construction of nearly three miles of new open ditch and five new branch lines. These would outlet through a 48-inch pipe into a ravine 3000 meters above the trout stream. As the outlet did not discharge directly into the trout stream, the DNR did not have the authority to prevent the project's construction. However, the project did raise the concerns of officials in the DNR Division of Waters.

12. Leo Griggs, an Area Hydrologist with the DNR, wrote a letter to the Deputy Administrator of Blue Earth County. Griggs stated that the project should be constructed to maintain the existing peak stream flows. If that was impossible, the petition should be denied so that all landowners were treated fairly. "As a society, we can no longer ignore the consequences of our actions with respect to the treatment of water," he wrote. "Our responsibility must extend to all landowners, both present and future."

13. While the petitioners saw the project as a local community issue, opponents believed it deserved large-scale public concern. Kenneth May, a local fanner, was disappointed to see outside groups intervening. "The neighbors are the ones being impacted," he said, "and it's their money that's being used. If we were asking for public dollars, it would be another story." But the opposition was worried that one by one, similar drainage projects would add up to larger environmental problems. In the Minnesota River Basin, where the project was located, water pollution was already a serious problem.

14. The lawyers at MFE were determined to change the way drainage decisions are made. Hydrologist Leo Griggs, supporting their stance, wrote a letter to engineer Dennis Coleman about the project concluding, "Despite our lack of direct jurisdiction with respect to this project, I still have several misgivings as concerns the potential for increased erosion, loss of wetlands, and increased flows... As you know, a great amount of effort and expense is being invested toward improving the quality and hydrology of the Minnesota River basin. The cumulative effects of projects such as this clearly run counter to those efforts."

15. Asked why he thought the project was singled out for public scrutiny, Steele responded, "We're just coming to a time now when the hog lots have really been picked on, and all the environmental stuff is coming to the forefront now, and a lot of circumstances came together." He expressed concern about farmers' future livelihood, saying that many feared a time will come when no new drainage will be allowed.

16. Steele also noted that views had changed within his own community. "The interesting part of the Krauses," he pointed out, "is that back in 1915 when this was put in, their dad was the original petitioner to get the drainage system in. So their dad wanted this drainage, and now these people are the ones who are trying to put a stop to it."

17. Many of the old tile systems in the Minnesota River Basin are breaking down, and they are not big enough to carry the water that is flowing to them. Family farmers like the Steeles know that maintaining or improving drainage systems helps guarantee their economic survival in an era when many small farms have been forced out of business.

18. Farmers have spent millions of dollars implementing Best Management Practices to decrease the amount of sediment and nutrients that enter streams. Although state and federal programs have helped some farmers take erosion-prone or agriculturally marginal lands out of production, many farmers still feel they are being assessed more than their share of the burden in improving water quality. On this issue, Steele said, "You can't expect a farmer, on land he's paying taxes on, to totally fund what urban people want."

19. Determined to defend their case, Steele and the other petitioners hired their own lawyer. Attorney David Johnson specified the MFE's demands to settle the case. The project would have to be modified so that it did not drain or otherwise damage the designated trout stream or any wetlands, and did not increase the surface water flow into the Minnesota River.

20. Steele and the other petitioners were facing estimated costs of near $50,000 in lawyer's fees and $22,000 in court time. Additionally, the changes to the system that satisfied MFE's demands could cost $20,000 to $40,000 above the original estimated cost of the project. When he sought help and advice, Steele recalled, "We found out it was a pretty lonely deal and not too many people want to help you. We were really put out that absolutely nobody really seemed to care about helping us a whole lot."

21. Although some petitioners wanted to continue to fight MFE'S decision, some wanted to settle quickly and cut their losses. They asked Steele to lead the group in their decision. There were no guarantees of winning the case if it went to court, and the added costs were mounting. Glen Steele pondered what he should do realizing that, for himself and his neighbors, there was great potential for longterm impact in his decision.

While this case represents an actual situation, all names of people have been changed.

Part of the Crop Management Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.