Legalectric

It’s official – Rice County has been sued for its repeated pattern of violating and ignoring environmental law related to Environmental Assessment Worksheets. This is a suit under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, which allows anyone to sue about a violation of environmental law, substantive or procedural. This suit is based on some of Rice County’s many procedural violations of environmental law.

Group sues over EAW

By Pauline Schreiber
Daily News Staff Writer

FARIBAULT — Rice County is being sued by a group of citizens over alleged violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.

Carol Overland, Northfield, prepared the complaint, filed Friday in Rice County District Court, on behalf of a group called Rice County Land Use Accountability Inc.

“This is really about the county board’s repeated pattern of violating environmental law,” Overland said Monday. “How else can citizens hold the county accountable for not abiding by environmental laws?”

The lengthy complaint outlines 10 incidences of alleged violations of procedures by the county involving Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) petitions and rules set down by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.

“We’re asking for declaratory judgment that Rice County has violated the rules regarding EAW multiple times,” Overland said. “We’re asking that the county board’s right to be responsible government unit (RGU) in regards to EAWs be taken away and given to the EQB (Environmental Quality Board). And then, we’re asking that remedial training be provided to the county board, planning commission and staff in regards to environmental rights rules.”

Rice County Administrator Gary Weiers said Monday that he received a copy of the complaint Friday, and has forwarded it to the Rice County Attorney’s office.

“I really can’t comment on it, other than to say the county has received it, and the county attorney’s office will proceed with a legal response to it,” Weiers said.

The lawsuit alleges the county:
— Improperly subtracted a restored wetland area from a residential development on Circle Lake. As a result, the project was under the 80 acre threshold needed for a mandatory EAW when farmland is converted to residential use;

— Did not comply with the times limits set forth in the rules regarding a petition submitted by citizens asking for an discretionary EAW on the Circle Lake project; and did not provide proper notice to the Circle Lake petitioners of the county’s determination regarding their EAW petition;

— Did not provide proper notice to petitioners in regards to the county board’s determination regarding their petition for an EAW on the conversion of farmland along Interstate 35, south of the Big Steer Restaurant, and around the County Road 1 and I-35 intersection, to a commercial zone; and also violated rules requiring a mandatory EAW when farmland of more than 80 acres is converted to commercial development;

— Violated environmental rules when it finalized a conditional use permit for a new Wheeling Township hog feedlot with an EAW petition pending.

— Pauline Schreiber can be reached at 333-3127 or pschreiber@faribault.com.

Here’s what Pauline Schreiber missed — the relief requested. This suit requests that:

1. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 4 by segmenting in a phased and connected action to avoid environmental review of the project that was the subject of the Circle Lake EAW Petition.

2. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 7, through non-compliance with the time limits set forth in the rule regarding the Circle Lake EAW Petition.

3. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Circle Lake Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

4. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Interstate 35 & County Rd. 1 Intersection Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

5. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, by not providing notice to the Wheeling Township Feedlot Permit Application Petitioners of the county determination regarding their EAW Petition.

6. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision regarding rezoning while the Interstate 35 and County Road 1 EAW Petition was pending.

7. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.3100, by making a final governmental decision approving a permit application while the Wheeling Township Feedlot EAW Petition was pending.

8. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a mandatory EAW is required for projects having an impact on wetlands.

9. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Circle Lake project, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.

10. Declaratory Judgment that Rice County has violated Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 36, regarding the Interstate 35 and County Rd. 1 rezoning, where a Mandatory EAW is required for projects that result in conversion of more than 80 acres of agricultural land.

11. Order that due to Rice County?s violations of environmental law, for a reasonable term of years Rice County shall not be designated RGU for Environmental Review, and that the Environmental Quality Board shall be designated the RGU.

12. Order remedial training for Rice County staff, Commissioners, and Planning Commissioners regarding Environmental Review.

13. Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys? fees, necessary to bring this action.

14. Award such other relief as the court deems proper.

WOW! That’s a long list! I put that list here for a reason — so that you’ll get an idea the magnitude of violations on the part of the county. This long list of violations comes from a review of the county’s treatment of only three recent EAW Petitions. Unfortunately for Rice County, the cumulative impact of their pattern of violations of environmental law is something we cannot undo, but we must make sure that the violations do not continue, and that county officials learn how to conduct proper environmental review.

It’s numbers 11 and 12 that are particularly important, because that long list of violations showing the pattern of behavior demonstrates that they don’t understand environmental review or just don’t care, and that’s not an appropriate attitude for those engaged in environmental review, much less governmental officials and staff on the taxpayer payroll who are supposed to be representing the people! In this suit, we’re asking that the powers of environmental review be taken away from the county and that the Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, and county staff receive remedial training in environmental review. It’s this equitable remedy that can correct the problem.

A recent example of the Rice County Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of environmental review — just last Thursday, when the County’s Planning Commission met to decide whether to go forward with an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), I asked whether they’d read the Environmental Quality Board’s overview of content and form necessary in an AUAR. I showed them a copy and later entered it for the record, it’s called Recommended Content and Format — Alternative Urban Areawide Review, asked them all with good eye contact, and not a single one had read it! It’s on the EQB’s main web page, not hidden. I guess I should have also asked on the record whether they’d read the AUAR rules, but if they hadn’t read the “Cliff Notes” I’d bet they don’t even know where the rules are! I get really tired of this brazen ignorance, and it’s time they were held accountable for doing proper environmental review.

EAW’s don’t stop projects, and none of the handful, well two handfuls, of EAW’s I’ve worked on have ever advanced to an EIS stage, though some certainly should have. An EAW is designed to show that project proposers have considered the potential environmental impacts of their project and have presented that information to project reviewers, and that project reviewers have taken that information into account and that the public has been allowed to address those issues prior to a decision being made on the project.

“Some people,” Ray Cox for example, think EAW’s are “abused” and use of them should be limited or eliminated. “Some people” think that the people should not be allowed to request that this environmental information be provided on projects, and that citizens should not be allowed to comment on environmental impacts. Ray Cox acted on this belief — He was the deciding vote in the House Environment Committee that allowed HF1202, a bill eliminating, ELIMINATING, use of EAW’s for feedlots under 1,000 animal units to pass through Committee and go on to the House floor (1000 animal units is 3,000 finishing hogs). Here’s a Guest Column Ray wrote, Process for EAW, after Rick Nord reminded him that Ray had said he would not weaken environmental review yet had done exactly that with his vote on HF1202. Ray confirmed he’d said that to Rick, but goes on to try to explain that his elimination of right to Petition was not weakening of environmental review… yeah… right…

So Rice County has been sued for its pattern of violations and disregard of environmental law. I’ll keep you posted as it moves forward.