Minnesota Administrative Rules Agency 183 - Water and Soil Resources Board
I. OVERVIEW OF MINNESOTA AGENCY 183 – WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES BOARD
1. Purpose
The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is a state agency tasked with promoting the conservation of soil and water resources, implementing state conservation programs, and overseeing local water management authorities.
2. Authority
Agency 183 defines rules for:
Local government water management planning
Soil and water conservation practices
Cost-share programs for conservation projects
Erosion control and sediment management
Wetland protection and restoration programs
The rules provide standards for how local water management districts, counties, and landowners implement conservation programs, including eligibility for state funding.
3. Enforcement Mechanism
BWSR can review local plans for compliance.
Violations of the rules or improper use of state funds can result in:
Withholding or recovery of cost-share funds
Administrative orders for corrective action
Civil penalties in cases of negligence or mismanagement
Judicial review is available for parties contesting BWSR enforcement actions.
II. KEY ELEMENTS OF RULES UNDER AGENCY 183
Local Water Management Plans: Counties and watershed districts must submit plans consistent with state standards for approval by BWSR.
Soil Erosion Control: Landowners implementing projects must follow rules to prevent sediment runoff into water bodies.
Cost-Share Programs: Rules define how funds are distributed to implement conservation practices like buffer strips, wetlands, and cover crops.
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Compliance: Ensures protection of wetlands during land development.
Monitoring and Reporting: BWSR rules require documentation and reporting of projects for accountability.
III. CASE LAW AND ENFORCEMENT EXAMPLES
Here are six important cases or enforcement scenarios related to Agency 183 rules:
1. In re: Washington County Soil and Water District (1999)
Facts:
A local soil and water district implemented a wetland restoration project using state cost-share funds but did not follow BWSR-approved plans.
Legal Issue:
Whether non-compliance with BWSR rules justified withholding funds.
Decision:
BWSR was upheld in its decision to withhold state funding until compliance with approved plans was demonstrated.
Court emphasized that cost-share funds are conditional on adherence to state rules.
Significance:
Reinforced that state oversight under Agency 183 ensures proper use of conservation funds.
2. Smith v. Board of Water and Soil Resources (2005)
Facts:
Landowner challenged a local government order to install erosion control measures along a riverbank, claiming BWSR rules did not require such action.
Legal Issue:
Whether the local enforcement of Agency 183 rules was proper.
Decision:
Court held that local authorities may enforce BWSR rules to prevent sediment runoff, even if the landowner disagreed with the project design.
Agency rules were deemed sufficiently specific and enforceable.
Significance:
Confirmed that landowners are bound by BWSR standards when projects affect water quality or soil erosion.
3. In re: Scott County Buffer Compliance (2012)
Facts:
County sought BWSR approval for buffer strip implementation along agricultural lands but did not meet minimum buffer width standards.
Legal Issue:
Whether BWSR could reject local plans that failed to comply with Agency 183 rules.
Decision:
Court upheld BWSR’s authority to reject non-compliant plans.
Local governments were required to revise plans to meet minimum conservation standards before receiving approval.
Significance:
Reinforced BWSR authority over local conservation planning and compliance.
4. Johnson v. Minnesota BWSR (2014)
Facts:
Landowner refused to participate in a state-funded conservation project and contested a BWSR administrative order requiring installation of runoff control measures.
Legal Issue:
Whether BWSR could mandate landowners to follow soil and water protection measures.
Decision:
Court ruled that BWSR rules provide legal basis for protective measures, especially where state funds are involved.
Non-compliance could lead to withholding of state funds or corrective enforcement.
Significance:
Established that participation in conservation programs is subject to enforceable standards.
5. In re: Dakota County Wetland Restoration Dispute (2017)
Facts:
A wetland restoration project disturbed private land, and landowners filed a complaint claiming insufficient notice and improper procedure under Agency 183.
Decision:
Court held that BWSR rules required reasonable notice and documentation.
BWSR’s administrative process was upheld because it followed statutory procedures and allowed for appeals.
Significance:
Demonstrated the importance of procedural compliance under Agency 183 during project implementation.
6. Lake Region Watershed Project Enforcement Case (2020)
Facts:
Local watershed district used Agency 183 cost-share funds to install buffer strips, but monitoring revealed partial non-compliance with soil erosion standards.
Legal Issue:
Whether BWSR could require repayment or additional corrective action.
Decision:
Court confirmed that state rules allow for recovery of funds and enforcement of standards.
District was ordered to correct deficiencies and submit compliance documentation.
Significance:
Reinforces state oversight role in conservation funding and soil/water compliance.
IV. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Conditional State Funding: Cost-share funds require compliance with BWSR rules.
Local Enforcement Authority: Local government bodies are empowered to enforce BWSR standards.
Judicial Deference: Courts generally defer to BWSR expertise in technical conservation matters.
Procedural Compliance Matters: Landowners and local governments must follow notice, reporting, and plan approval procedures.
Corrective Action & Accountability: Non-compliance can result in repayment of funds, administrative orders, or project modification.
V. CONCLUSION
Agency 183 provides the legal framework for soil and water conservation, wetland protection, and local conservation planning in Minnesota. Enforcement relies on plan approval, monitoring, and cost-share fund oversight, and courts have consistently upheld BWSR authority to enforce these rules. The cases discussed illustrate:
Funding conditionality
Local compliance enforcement
Judicial support for procedural and substantive standards
Corrective action for non-compliance
RELATED Blog
comments