Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 106. DRAINAGE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 106.021 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1949–1975 · leading case: Herschman v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 225 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herschman v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 225 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1975). · cites it 9× “1971, § 106.021, subd. 2, a permit is required from the commissioner of natural resources before said lake can be lowered.”
In Re Petition of Lippmann, 81 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1957). · cites it 3× “” Section 106.021, subd. 1, heretofore referred to, contains the initiatory provisions in the matter of granting powers to county boards and the district courts in establishing, constructing, and maintaining public drainage systems.”
Hawkins v. Cnty. of Kandiyohi, 48 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 2× “Section 106.021, subd. 3, provides: “* * * no dam affecting public waters shall be constructed, removed or altered, nor shall the level of any public waters be established, raised or lowered, nor shall any public waters be drained in whole or in part without the authority of the…”
In re Jud. Ditch No. 24, 87 F. Supp. 198 (D. Minnesota 1949). “§§ 106.021, 106.031. Until the time of appeal, the duties and procedure of the district court and the county board are similar, if not the same, in the ditch proceedings over which they have jurisdiction.”
Balbach v. Moe, 200 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1972). · cites it 8× “primary contention on appeal is that the diversion of surface runoff will have the same effect on the water level of Boise Lake as establishing a drainage outlet for the lake *315 itself, and thus the county board’s order was unlawful because the commissioner of natural…”
In re Holden, 232 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1975). “2d 841 (1975), a case in which the Sibley County Board of County Commissioners ordered the establishment of a ditch to lower the water level of a meandered lake, we held that because no permit had been issued by the DNR pursuant to § 106.021, subd. 2, and because the DNR had not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.