Minn. Stat. § 115.071

State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Maple Hill Estates, Inc. · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst · 1977 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson · 2017 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In Re American Iron and Supply Co. · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

City of Minneapolis v. State · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Normandale Properties, Inc. · 1988 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Gerring · 1988 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. McAllister · 1987 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Wagner v. Scheirer · 2024 2 citations

Minn. R. 7020.0300, subp. 18. Thus, for example, one difference between a “feedlot” and a “pasture” appears to be whether the concentration of animals prevents maintenance of a vegetative cover (in the case of an “animal feedlot”) or allows it (in the case of a “pasture”). Defendants are MPCA employees who regulate feedlots. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–12. The MPCA possesses authority generally to promote waste disposal and improve air quality. Minn. Stat. §§ 116.02, 116.07. Under this general authority, the MPCA is “authorized to ‘adopt rules governing the issuance and denial of permits for livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots.’” Am. Compl. ¶ 22 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subdiv. 7(h)). The MPCA also has enforcement power, and may pursue remedies such as civil penalties, injunctions, and criminal prosecutions. Minn. Stat. § 115.071. Defendant Randall Hukriede worked as program manager of the MPCA’s feedlot program and supervised Defendant Lisa Scheirer. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Ms. Scheirer, in turn, was supervisor of the

Minn. R. 7020.0300, subp. 18. Thus, for example, one difference between a “feedlot” and a “pasture” appears to be whether the concentration of animals prevents maintenance of a vegetative cover (in the case of an “animal feedlot”) or allows it (in the case of a “pasture”). Defendants are MPCA employees who regulate feedlots. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–12. The MPCA possesses authority generally to promote waste disposal and improve air quality. Minn. Stat. §§ 116.02, 116.07. Under this general authority, the MPCA is “authorized to ‘adopt rules governing the issuance and denial of permits for livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots.’” Am. Compl. ¶ 22 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subdiv. 7(h)). The MPCA also has enforcement power, and may pursue remedies such as civil penalties, injunctions, and criminal prosecutions. Minn. Stat. § 115.071. Defendant Randall Hukriede worked as program manager of the MPCA’s feedlot program and supervised Defendant Lisa Scheirer. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Ms. Scheirer, in turn, was supervisor of the

United States v. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. · 1985 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

United States v. Reserve Mining Co. · 1976 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

United States v. Reserve Mining Company · 1974 4 citations

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.