OCR Text |
Show MINNESOTA 417 Commissioner has authority to attach conditions (see section 3.2 supra), the question of transferability may not be very important. 3.4 Loss of Rights Perhaps the greatest insecurity of permits acquired under the Minnesota permit system is that every permit issued by the commis- sioner is subject to cancellation "at any time if deemed necessary by him for any cause for the protection of the public interest * * *" 60 Some have suggested that governmental largess should not be dis- pensed in such a high-handed manner.61 Apart from considerations of that sort, it might be that private investment in expensive water pro- jects will be deterred. The legislature seemed to perceive this, and, as a concession to the State's mining industry, a subsequent section 62 provides that water permits issued in connection with the mining of taconite, copper, copper nickel, and nickel may be for a specified period, and during that term such permits are expressly made irrev- ocable, except where the permittee has breached some condition of the permit. Some constitutional questions might be raised over the equality and uniformity of property rights under the permits, par- ticularly with respect to the special treatment of certain permits for categorized mining purposes. Early Minnesota cases held that riparian rights are not lost by a transfer to a nonriparian owner63 or by nonuse.64 Most of the cases in other riparian jurisdictions have reached the opposite conclusion with respect to nonriparian use. 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds Minnesota statutes provide that it is unlawful for any person or political agency to construct, reconstruct, remove, or abandon or make any change in any reservoir, dam, or waterway construction on any public water without obtaining a permit to do so from the Commis- sioner of Conservation. An exception to this provision is made for activities necessary to the construction and maintenance of highways, when the "control" of public waters is not affected. The Commissioner has power to impose terms and conditions on any permit he grants, and any such permit must be approved by the county board.65 The Commissioner is authorized to examine any reservoir, dam, or waterway obstruction, and if he determines any such waterwork to be unsafe, he is to require the owner to repair or remove the same in order to make it safe.66 The owner or operator of a dam has a duty to exercise due care in constructing and operating it, commensurate with the foreseeable dangers involved. One Minnesota case held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when a dam in a natural watercourse is wholly within the defendant's control and is operated in such a manner as 80 Sec. 105.44(9). 81 See C. Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. 733 (1964). «• Section 105.44(9). 63 St. Anthony Falls Water Power Go. V. City of Minneapolis, note 7, p. 15. On trans- ferability, see cases cited in note 6, p. 15. 84 Reeves v. Backus Brooks Co., 83 Minn. 339, 86 N.W. 337 (1901). 85 Sec. 105.42. 89 Sec. 105.52. |