Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Only a Good-Gaith Showing of Potential
for Significant Environmental Effects Required

Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Vasgaard v. Murray County Board of Commissioners, No. C2-03-181, 2003 WL 21962493 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2003), the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the district court that upheld a decision of the Murray County Board of Commissioners (Board) because the Board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously in denying appellants' petition.

Background

Bonnstetter owned and operated a farm in Murray County, and before 2002, Bonnstetter operated a hog feedlot on his farm with approximately 300 hogs kept in an open lot. Id. at *1. Bonnstetter moved forward with plans to enlarge his feedlot operation by constructing an 81-foot by 200-foot building that would house 2,000 finishing hogs for finishing to slaughter. Id. Once a year, the manure would be pumped and knifed into the ground on the surrounding farmland. Id. Neighbors of Bonnstetter submitted a citizen petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board because the proposed feedlot could have significant environmental effects. Id. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board designated Murray County as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for environmental review of the feedlot project. Id. The Board held a hearing to consider the EAW petition on August 6, 2002, and found that the evidence did not show that the proposed feedlot expansion would have the potential environmental effects and denied the petition for an EAW. Id. The district court deferred to the board and denied the neighbors' summary judgment motion. Id.

Arguments

The neighbors argued that the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying their petition for an EAW. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the petitioners raised several environmental concerns in their petitions. Id. at *3. The court examined whether there was substantial evidence to support the board's findings. Id. at *2. When considering whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur form the project with certain criteria including the type, extent, reversibility, or environmental effects. Id. at *3. The intent of the petition for an EAW is to demonstrate a good faith presentation by the petitioners demonstrating a "reasonable persons standard that significant adverse environmental effects may result from the proposed action." Id. The petitioners did not need to prove that the expansion would cause significant environmental effects, but that there may be the potential for significant environmental effects. Id. at *4. The court held that the petitioners met the minimal standard of showing that there may be the potential for significant contamination of surface water as a result of the expansion, and therefore there was evidence to support the granting of the petition. Id.

The court did hold that the boards findings as to ground water depletion, road degradation, the negative impact on property values, the increased levels of noise and dust, and the release of antibiotic-resistant bacteria were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Id. at *6-7.

The case was decided on August 19, 2003.