Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

County Must Forward Permit Applications to PCA
If Capacity for 1,000 Animal Units

Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Board of Commissioners, 694 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005), the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dodge County when a citizen group sought declatory judgment on an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a hog confinement facility.

Background

The Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living (BAA) challenged the district court's determination that Dodge County did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it concluded that an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the construction of a hog confinement facility was not required. Id. at 579. The Minnesota statute required that an EIS prepared by a responsible governmental unit must precede any governmental action resulting in potentially significant environmental effects. Id. at 580. The statute created an exemption for feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 animals. Id. Mark Finstuen had a feedlot for thirty-five steers and applied for a conditional use permit to allow him to build and operate a hog feedlot. Id. at 579. Although the lot had the capacity for more than 1,000 animal units (AUs), it would be used to house only 995 AUs, including the thirty-five steers. Id. The county made a negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS and granted the application for the project after considering Finstuen's application, his Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), and other environmentally related information. Id.

Arguments

BAA argued that an EIS was required for the project. Id. It also argued that the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and not the county had the authority to determine the need for an EIS. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the feedlot in question was not exempt from environmental review under the statute because it could physically hold more than 1,000 AUs. Id. at 581. The court disagreed with the county's argument that "capacity" under the statute was a legal capacity because a legal capacity created incongruence in the statute and is inconsistent with the common meaning of the statutory term. Id.

The court also held that the county lacked the authority to issue permits for the proposed feedlot. Id. at 583. The court found that the county acted in conjunction with the PCA and had agreed to forward all applications of animal feedlots of 1,000 AUs or more to the director of the PCA. Id. at 582. Therefore, the PCA did not delegate authority to the county to issue the permit to Finstuen because his facility had a capacity of more than 1,000 AUs, and the county did not forward his application to the PCA. Id.

The case was decided on April 12, 2005.