In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit the Draft Little Rock Creek Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Temperature, and Fish Bioassessment Total Maximum Daily Load Study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Approval.
A16-123
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Relators are landowners/farmers near Little Rock Creek (a DNR-designated trout stream) who challenged the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) decision to submit a draft TMDL (dissolved oxygen, nitrate, temperature, fish bioassessment) for the watershed to the EPA for approval.
- MPCA conducted a three-phase study (data collection, stressor identification, TMDL development) and concluded reductions in oxygen demand, nitrates, and thermal loading were needed; it attributed most loading to nonpoint sources and natural background and applied a margin of safety.
- MPCA posted the draft, responded to public comments, incorporated EPA feedback, and submitted the draft TMDL to EPA; two timely petitions for contested-case hearings were filed contesting natural-background allocations and potential effects of nitrate reductions.
- MPCA denied contested-case hearing petitions as failing to identify disputed material facts and concluded issues presented were legal/policy questions; relators sought certiorari review in the Court of Appeals.
- The court considered (1) whether relators had standing under the statutory scheme, (2) whether MPCA erred by not separating natural-background from nonpoint-source load allocations, (3) whether MPCA exceeded its authority, and (4) whether denial of a contested-case hearing was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal MPCA TMDL approval | Relators contended they were "aggrieved" because TMDL could cause compliance costs and lower property values | MPCA argued alleged injuries are speculative and too remote at draft stage | Court: Relators have statutory standing as "aggrieved persons" under Minn. Stat. §§114D.25 & 115.05 |
| Requirement to allocate "natural background" separately from nonpoint sources | Relators argued statute and regs require distinguishing natural background and separate load allocation | MPCA said it considered background but could not reliably separate it from nonpoint sources and statute groups them together | Court: MPCA’s combined handling was lawful and supported by record; statute’s language treats "nonpoint sources and natural background" together |
| Compliance with federal/state TMDL procedures | Relators argued MPCA failed to follow required methodology for load allocations | MPCA asserted it followed federal regs and state law, considered critical conditions, and applied margin of safety | Court: MPCA’s procedures were reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and within its authority |
| Denial of contested-case hearing | Relators asserted factual disputes (natural background levels) that would be resolved by testimony and experts | MPCA maintained petitions raised legal/policy issues, not material factual disputes | Court: Denial proper—petitions raised legal issues; relators failed to show specific disputed material facts warranting hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (discusses CWA effluent limitations vs. water quality standards)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. EPA, 415 F.3d 1121 (definition/character of nonpoint-source discharges)
- City of Arcadia v. U.S. EPA, 411 F.3d 1103 (water quality standards set permissible pollution levels)
- Thomas v. Jackson, 581 F.3d 658 (state must assemble and evaluate available water-quality data for §303(d) listing)
- Sierra Club, N. Star Chapter v. Browner, 843 F. Supp. 1304 (court found no evidence agency failed to consider nonpoint and natural sources in TMDL)
- Minn. Envtl. Sci. & Econ. Review Bd. v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 870 N.W.2d 97 (MN App. decision recognizing standing in pre-enforcement water-quality challenges)