OCR Text |
Show 410 MINNESOTA so. By contrast, the New Jersey court has clearly approved higher standards than might be necessary for public health purpose.16 B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN In 1969, the legislature passed a Shorelands' Protection Act which authorizes the commissioner of natural resources to adopt a model ordinance relating to the development of shoreland.17 Its principal purpose is to prevent pollution and development which would impair esthetic values of such lands. To further this purpose, the commis- sioner may regulate placement of structures in relation to shorelands and roads and placement and construction of sanitary waste facilities. He may also designate and control types of land use in these areas. The model ordinance may be adapted to the special needs of particu- lar counties. The legislature in the same year adopted the Flood Plain Manage- ment Act,18 which goes further than simply protecting the environ- ment. It seeks to control development in flood plain areas in order that the enormous losses from floods of the major rivers in the State may be avoided.19 C. PUBLIC WATER AGENCIES Although drainage and conservancy districts are authorized by statute,20 the act has not been used extensively, and a few such dis- tricts organized years ago have either been abandoned or reorganized as watershed districts. The Minnesota Watershed Act, adopted in 1955 to promote conser- vation of the natural resources of the State through land utilization, flood control, and other needs "upon sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of natural resources," encourages regional organization to accom- plish its objectives.21 Counties, cities, or villages may combine to form watershed districts, which have extensive powers, including control of flood waters; improvement of stream channels for drainage or navigation; reclamation of wet or overflowed lands; water supply for irrigation; regulation of streamflows and conservation of stream water; regulation of diversions or changes in watercourses; water supply for domestic, industrial, recreation, agricultural, and other public uses; control of waste disposal ditches; control of improve- ments in drainage systems within the district; control of soil erosion; and regulation of improvements by riparian landowners. When the district is properly organized and its plan for improvements is ap- proved by the department of natural resources, the watershed district becomes a public corporation and an agency of the State with taxing power based on a benefits-received principle. The constitutionality of the act has been upheld,22 and numerous problems relating to' the 16 City of Newark v. Dep't of Health, 109 N.J. Super. 166, 262 A. 2d 718 (1970). 17 Sees. 105.485, 394.25, 396.03, and 396.051. 18 Sec. 104.01(3). 10 For an excellent note on Minnesota's flood plain management program, see note. 55 Minn. L. Rev. 1163 (1971). See also H. Schurtz, Flood Plain Management, Contemporary Developments in Water Law, Univ. of Texas, Water Resources Symposium No. 4 (C. Johnson, S. Lewis ed. 1970). 20 Sees. 111.01 to 111.81. 21 Sees. 112.34 to 112.85. 2a Adelman v. Onischukj 271 Minn. 216, 135 N.W. 2d 670 (1965) cert, denied, 382 U.S. 108 (1965). |