| OCR Text |
Show MINNESOTA 409 appears that the entire matter of defining rights and resolving con- flicts is left to the courts. 2.3 0 ther A gencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities A. WATER QUALITY CONTROL In 1967, the water pollution control commission was abolished and its functions transferred to the pollution control agency, which now has responsibility for administering the land, air, and water pollu- tion control programs.13 Among its numerous powers is the task of classifying waters of the State and issuing water quality and effluent standards.14 Pollution of the waters of the State in violation of the standards is declared to be a public nuisance. In the absence of appli- cable standards, it is also a public nuisance to discharge any sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes into any waters of the State. Such a public nuisance may be abated by suit brought by the attorney general. North Suburban San. S. Dist. v. Water Poll. Con. Common.15 is one of the leading cases on the enforcement of effluent standards. In that case the State pollution control agency, in establishing pollution standards for the Mississippi River, adopted a standard that said no treated sewage effluent could be discharged into the river at certain designated points. The sanitary district proposed to discharge its treated sewage at a point prohibited by the standards, which was located 1.1 mile downstream from the main intake of the water sup- ply system for the city of Minneapolis. After an administrative hearing, the validity of the standard was upheld, and the sanitary district sought review in the district court, where the standard was held to be invalid because it was unreasonable and arbitrary. The State agency appealed, arguing that while the sanitary district's program was not dangerous to the city water supply under normal conditions, there was a possibility of contaminating the supply either because of human failure in the operation of the sewage system, or because of simultaneous bombing by the enemy of the sewage system and the city's purification plant, or because of unusual drought accompanied by strong wind which might cause airborne contamination. The State supreme court held that while the standards were validly promul- gated by the agency, their application to the facts of the particular case was arbitrary and unreasonable because the probability of con- tamination was too remote. Without detailing the expert testimony presented in the case, the principal legal question was whether the State agency could validly require a higher water quality standard than would be applied by the courts in cases involving common law pollution. In other words, could the State, in furtherance of its policy to prevent further deg- radation of the river's water, adopt the higher standards? The Minnesota court at least cast some doubt on the State's power to do M Sees. 116.02 to 116.15 (1971 supp.). 14 Sec. 115.44 (1971 supp.). For a detailed discussion of The Minnesota Pollution Con- trol Agency-A Study in State Administrative Law, 56 Minn. L. Rev. 997 (1972). 15 281 Minn. 524,162 N.W. 2d (1968). |
