§ 105.39

Application of Christenson · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Kaldahl · 1988 1 citation

Civil enforcement of a remedial sanction does not constitute double jeopardy. See Helvering, 303 U.S. at 404, 58 S.Ct. at 635-36; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 548-49, 63 S.Ct. 379, 386, 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943). Chapter 105 established state control over public waters and wetlands “[i]n order to conserve and utilize the water resources of the state in the best interests of the people of the state, and for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare.” See Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1984). This is remedial legislation which grants the Commissioner authority to impose certain civil sanctions in order to promote water resources conservation and wildlife habitat preservation. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 105.39, 105.392 (1984). The remedial nature of chapter 105 also is reflected in the civil administrative procedures for contesting DNR actions that affect property owners. See Minn. Stat. §§ 105.461-.462, 105.44, subd. 3.

In Re Determining the Natural Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Pulaski · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Lindberg v. Department of Natural Resources · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.