The Minnesota Supreme Court holds that the Water Resources Board acted within its statutory authority and not arbitrarily in establishing the Clearwater River Watershed District primarily for pollution control, affirming the district court's judgment.
Outcome: Affirmed for appellee.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2017, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
What happened
The facts of the case, in plain language.
The July 3, 1974 petition to establish the Clearwater River Watershed District stated a primary purpose of controlling pollution of the Clearwater River system, which drains portions of Stearns, Wright, and Meeker Counties.
Testimony at the board's public hearings established a serious pollution problem in the Clearwater River system caused most significantly by inadequately treated sewage, a fact the appellants did not contest.
On April 9, 1975, the board issued its order establishing the watershed district, finding that coordinated public water management was lacking at the federal, state, and local levels and that establishment would serve the public welfare and the purposes of the Minnesota Watershed Act.
Because the watershed district had made no special assessments, the appellants' constitutional challenge to using assessments for pollution control presented a hypothetical controversy the court declined to decide.
The director's August 30, 1974 preliminary report conditionally recommended establishment, stating the district should be created if coordinated management would be impossible without it and possible with it.
What the court decided
Property owners Donald Markwardt and Marvin Sommers sought district court review of the Minnesota Water Resources Board's April 9, 1975 order creating the Clearwater River Watershed District, whose primary purpose was controlling pollution of the Clearwater River system. After the district court affirmed, they appealed on three grounds: that the board lacked authority to create a watershed district aimed chiefly at pollution control, that future special assessments would unconstitutionally fund non-local purposes, and that the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The supreme court affirmed. Minn.St. 112.36 permits a district for "any" enumerated conservation purpose, and inadequately treated sewage—a documented cause of the river's pollution—falls within section 112.36(8) (sanitation and waste disposal). The assessment claim was premature because no assessments had been made, and the record showed a reasonable basis for the board's action.
- A watershed district may be established under Minn.St. 112.36 for any one of the enumerated conservation purposes, and creation of a district supported by any single enumerated purpose does not exceed the board's statutory authority. (*374)
- Pollution caused by inadequately treated sewage falls within Minn.St. 112.36(8) (providing for sanitation and public health and regulating watercourses for waste disposal), so a watershed district may be created primarily to control such pollution even though pollution control is not a specifically enumerated purpose. (*374)
- A challenge to special assessments that have not yet been levied presents a hypothetical controversy that a court will not decide; the creation of a watershed district alone creates no justiciable controversy with respect to property rights. (*374)
- Under Minn.St. 15.0425, a court will not interfere with an administrative agency's conclusions unless the agency violated a constitutional provision, exceeded its statutory authority or jurisdiction, followed an unlawful procedure, proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, acted without substantial evidence, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously; the party seeking review bears the burden of proving such a violation. (*374)
- An agency that receives advisory reports in evidence is not bound to follow them but must consider the evidence in its entirety, and findings that the district serves the public welfare and effectuates the purposes of the Watershed Act satisfy Minn.St. 112.39, subd. 3, without a specific finding that coordinated management will be possible. (*375)
How the court reached its decision
The court's reasoning, step by step.
Whether the Water Resources Board exceeded its statutory authority by establishing a watershed district whose primary purpose was control of pollution in the Clearwater River system. Substantial hearing evidence established that pollution of the Clearwater River system was caused largely by inadequately treated sewage, which falls directly within section 112.36(8); conserving recreational water supply (subsection (7)), controlling soil erosion (subsection (10)), and regulating septic systems and riparian improvements (subsection (11)) supplied additional enumerated bases, although conceivably certain forms of water pollution would not justify a district. Because the pollution was caused by factors a watershed district may alleviate and several enumerated purposes applied, establishment of the district did not exceed the board's statutory authority.
Whether the board's order unconstitutionally requires special assessments to fund improvements that are not local. The watershed district had in fact made no special assessments, so the alleged injury rested entirely on the premises that assessments would inevitably be made and would inevitably fund non-local projects. The assessment argument presented a hypothetical controversy that the court declined to decide.
Whether the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in establishing the district notwithstanding the PCA report and the director's preliminary report. Appellants' negative inference from the PCA report did not constitute a 'recommendation,' the director's report was merely conditional, and the board's finding that no existing governmental unit could coordinate management, together with its express findings under Minn.St. 112.39, subd. 3, implicitly embraced the possibility of coordinated management; in any event, the board was required to consider the evidence in its entirety rather than be guided solely by the reports. Reviewing the entire record, the court was convinced there was a reasonable basis for the board's action and affirmed the district court's judgment.
Key quotes from the opinion
Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.
Cases the court relied on
Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.
Cases that cite this one
81 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Mattice v. Minnesota Property Insurance Placement (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
- In re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
- In re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
- Matter of University of Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
- Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)
- Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. (Minn. 2015)
- In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward (Minn. 2014)
- In re the Review of the 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Electric & Gas Utilities (Minn. 2009)
- In re the Quantification of Environmental Costs (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
- In re Combined Air & Solid Waste Permit No. 2211-91-OT-1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Erickson v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services for the State (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services (Minn. 1989)
- Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- In re the Joint Petition of Space Center Transport (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Minn. Ct. App. 1983)
- Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst (Minn. 1977)
- In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- In re the Complaint of the Minnesota Department of Commerce for Commission Action Against AT & T (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
- In re Request for Issuance of the SDS General Permit MNG300000 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
- In re the Claim for Benefits by Meuleners (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- Shagalow v. State, Department of Human Services (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- In re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- In re the Appeal of the Exclusion of Molnar (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Full opinion
The complete text of the court's opinion as published.
Opinion
Appellants, Donald H. Markwardt and Marvin Sommers, property owners in the affected area, petitioned district court for review pursuant to Minn.St. 15.0424 of an order of the Minnesota Water Resources Board (board) establishing the Clearwater River Watershed District (watershed district). The petitioners in the matter of the establishment of the watershed district were allowed to intervene in the present action. 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court affirming the order of the board. We affirm.
On July 3, 1974, a petition requesting the creation of a watershed district for the Clearwater River system was filed with the board by the intervenors. The primary purpose of the proposed watershed was to control pollution of the Clearwater River system, which provides drainage of portions of Stearns, Wright, and Meeker Counties. Pursuant to Minn.St. 112.37, subd. 3(3), the director of the Division of Waters, Soils and *373 Minerals (director) filed a preliminary report with the board on August 30, 1974, which recommended establishment of the watershed if “coordinated management will be impossible without the establishment of the district and * * * will be possible if the watershed district is established.”
The board held public hearings on the matter on October 9, 1974, and November 25, 1974. Testimony introduced at these hearings established that a serious pollution problem existed, a fact which appellants do not contest. Dr. Keith Knutson, an aquatic biologist, testified at length regarding the poor water quality in the area of the proposed watershed, explaining the condition was due most significantly to inadequately treated sewage, but other factors such as industrial waste, runoff from agricultural lands, and feed lots contributed to the pollution. Knutson and others testified regarding the difficulties encountered by the existing governmental units in dealing with the water problem, particularly the difficulty in obtaining financing. The evidence also included a Pollution Control Agency (PCA) report prepared in 1971. The PCA report recommended that local governments take steps to alleviate the pollution problem in the Clearwater River system and that “[consideration should be given to formation of a local organization, such as a watershed district, to be responsible for the restoration and maintenance of the Fairha-ven Dam.” This dam was rebuilt through the efforts of local citizens after the PCA report was issued but before the board’s hearings on establishing a watershed district. Opponents of the watershed district introduced testimony to the effect that the sewage treatment problem could be cured by existing local governments through adequate chlorination; that a creamery in Watkins, which was a possible source of industrial pollution, was in the process of improving its disposal system; and that other local government efforts in the nature of zoning and septic tank regulations were being undertaken.
On April 9, 1975, the board issued an order establishing the watershed district, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law in support thereof. The board found that current water problems in the Clearwater River system were the cause of loss of recreational uses, erosion, sedimentation, poor water quality, and attendant public health problems as detailed in the testimony of Knutson and the 1971 report of the PCA. The board also found that coordinated public water management was lacking in the area at Federal, state, and local levels and concluded that the public welfare, the public interest, and the purposes of the Minnesota Watershed Act, Minn.St. c. 112, would be subserved by the establishment of the proposed watershed district.
1. Appellants’ first argument is that the board lacked statutory authority to create a watershed district for the sole purpose of pollution control. Minn.St. 112.36 provides in part:
“A watershed district may be established for any or all of the following conservation purposes:
“(1) Control or alleviation of damage by flood waters;
“(2) Improvement of stream channels
“(3) Reclaiming or filling wet and overflowed lands;
“(4) Providing water supply for irrigation;
“(5) Regulating the flow of streams
“(6) Diverting or changing watercourses * * *;
“(7) Providing and conserving water supply for domestic, industrial, recreational, agricultural, or other public use;
“(8) Providing for sanitation and public health and regulating the use of streams, ditches, or watercourses for the purpose of disposing of waste;
“(9) Repair, improve, relocate, modify, consolidate, and abandon, in whole or in part, drainage systems * * *;
“(10) Imposition of preventive or remedial measures for the control or alleviation of land and soil erosion and siltation of watercourses or bodies of water affected thereby;
*374 “(11) Regulating improvements by riparian landowners of the beds, banks, and shores of lakes, streams, and marshes by permit or otherwise in order to preserve the same for beneficial use.”
The statute explicitly states that a watershed district may be established for any of the enumerated purposes. Cf. Adelman v. Onischuk, 271 Minn. 216, 135 N.W.2d 670, certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 108, 86 S.Ct. 257, 15 L.Ed.2d 192 (1965), which involved a watershed established for the purpose of maintaining a barge channel. If any one of the purposes enumerated in § 112.36 will support the creation of this watershed district, the board did not exceed its statutory authority.
Substantial evidence introduced at the hearings indicated that the pollution to the Clearwater River system was caused largely by inadequately treated sewage. Improving sewage treatment falls directly within § 112.36(8). It seems clear to us that this subsection alone would support the creation of the district. However, some of the other subsections do likewise. Subsection (7) relates to conserving water supply for, among others, recreational use. There are a number of resorts and summer homes within this district, and the lakes in the district are used for recreational purposes. Subsection (11) allows the district to regulate improvements by riparian landowners by permit or otherwise. Some of the pollution in this case was caused by inadequate septic tanks. There was also evidence of pollution caused by soil erosion, which comes within subsection (10).
Minn.St. 112.36 does not specifically mention pollution control as a purpose for which a watershed district may be created. There are conceivably certain forms of water pollution which would not justify the creation of a watershed district. The evidence in this case, however, indicates that the pollution is caused by factors which a watershed district may alleviate. The establishment of the watershed district therefore did not exceed the board’s statutory authority.
2. Appellants also argue that the board’s order requires special assessments to be made which will not be used for local improvements, in violation of Minn.Const. art. 10, § 1. The argument is based on two premises: (1) That the watershed district’s primary source of income under the statute is special assessments, which will inevitably be made in order to achieve pollution control; and (2) that any project undertaken for the purpose of pollution control will not constitute a local improvement. Since the district has in fact made no assessments, it is clear that this argument presents a hypothetical controversy, which we will not decide. Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 290 N.W. 802 (1940). Minn.St. 112.801 provides aggrieved parties an effective procedure for judicial review of the amount of benefits determined or the amount of damages allowed. The creation of a watershed district in and of itself creates no justiciable controversy with respect to such property rights.
3-4. Appellants lastly claim that the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in creating the watershed district. The scope of review of the action of an administrative agency is governed by Minn.St. 15.-0425. A court will not interfere with the conclusions of such agency unless it appears that the agency has violated a constitutional provision, has exceeded its statutory authority or jurisdiction, has followed an unlawful procedure, has proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, has taken an action without substantial evidence in support thereof, or has acted arbitrarily or capriciously so that its determination represents its will and not its judgment. Bryan v. Community State Bank, 285 Minn. 226, 172 N.W.2d 771 (1969). Upon judicial review of an action taken by an administrative agency, the party seeking review has the burden of proving that the conclusions of such agency violate one or more of the provisions of § 15.0425. Buffalo Creek Watershed Dist. v. Minn. Water Resources Bd., 291 Minn. 504, 188 N.W.2d 923 (1971).
Appellants contend that the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ignoring reports by the PCA and the director. *375 The PCA report suggested the creation of a watershed district for the purpose of rebuilding the Fairhaven dam, a project which has now been completed. Appellants seek to draw the negative inference that if the PCA thought a watershed district was appropriate for reconstructing the dam, it would not be appropriate for any other purpose. We fail to see how such an inarti-culated inference can constitute a “recommendation” of the PCA. The director’s report neither categorically recommended the watershed nor categorically opposed it. It merely stated that the watershed should be established if coordinated management of the area would be impossible without the district and would be possible with it. Appellants allege that by making no specific findings on this point, the board ignored the director’s report. However, the board stated in its findings of fact that “[n]o one existing agency or governmental unit has demonstrated the capability to coordinate the management [of the district].” It is true that there is no finding that the watershed district will be able to coordinate the management. However, Minn.St. 112.39, subd. 3, 2 requires only that the board find that the watershed district is in the public interest and that it will effectuate the purpose of the act. The board explicitly so found, and we believe that implicit in the findings of fact made by the board is the conclusion that coordinated management of the district will be possible. While the specific finding urged by appellants is not required by Minn.St. 112.39, subd. 3, or by Minn.St. 15.0422, 3 we think it would be a good practice for the board to make such a finding in future cases.
5. Even if we were to assume that the board did not follow the recommendations of the PCA and the director, reversal is not indicated. The board, having received the reports of the PCA and the director in evidence, is not required by law to be guided solely by such reports, but must consider the evidence in its entirety as a basis for its action. Having reviewed the entire record, we are convinced that there was a reasonable basis for the board’s action. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Acting as Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment pursuant to Minn.Const. art. 6, § 2, and Minn.St. 2.724, subd. 2.
. The petitioners in the matter of the establishment of the Clearwater River Watershed District initiated the proceeding before the board and are not to be confused with appellants in the instant action who petitioned for review of the board’s decision.
. Minn.St. 112.39, subd. 3, provides in part: “Upon the hearing if it appears to the board that the establishment of a district as prayed for in the nominating petition would be for the public welfare and public interest, and that the purpose of this chapter would be subserved by the establishment of a watershed district, the board shall, by its findings and order, establish a watershed district * *
. Minn.St. 15.0422 provides: “Every decision and order adverse to a party of the proceeding, rendered by an agency in a contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons therefor. The statement of reasons shall consist of a concise statement of the conclusions upon each contested issue of fact necessary to the decision. Parties to the proceeding shall be notified of the decision and order in person or by mail. A copy of the decision and order and accompanying statement of reasons together with a certificate of service shall be delivered or mailed upon request to each party or to his attorney of record.”
In Bryan v. Community State Bank, 285 Minn. 226, 232, 172 N.W.2d 771, 775 (1969), we held a mere conclusion that there was “reasonable public demand” for a bank was not sufficient to comply with Minn.St. 15.0422. In the instant case, however, the board made detailed and extensive findings, and we will not reverse simply because it failed to make the finding suggested by petitioners.
Continue your research
- Minnesota decisions applying Minn.St. 112.36's enumerated purposes to watershed district petitions
- Subsequent applications of the Minn.St. 15.0425 scope-of-review standards
- Commentary on ripeness limits on challenges to prospective special assessments
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.