(a) In any action maintained under section 116B.03, where the subject of the action is conduct governed by any environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit promulgated or issued by the Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health, or Department of Agriculture, whenever the plaintiff shall have made a prima facie showing that the conduct of the defendant violates or is likely to violate said environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit, the defendant may rebut the prima facie showing by the submission of evidence to the contrary; provided, however, that where the environmental quality standards, limitations, rules, orders, licenses, stipulation agreements, or permits of two or more of the aforementioned agencies are inconsistent, the most stringent shall control.
(b) In any other action maintained under section 116B.03, whenever the plaintiff shall have made a prima facie showing that the conduct of the defendant has, or is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state, the defendant may rebut the prima facie showing by the submission of evidence to the contrary. The defendant may also show, by way of an affirmative defense, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a defense hereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 116B.04 (2000). But recognizing that there are instances when environmental regulations may not keep up with changing conditions, the statute also provides that a plaintiff may bring a claim if the defendant has caused or is "likely to cause the pollution,…”
McGuire v. Cnty. of Scott, 525 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 14× “The defendant may also show, by the way of an affirmative defense, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state’s paramount…”
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 1977).
· cites it 2× “I premise this conclusion upon the sincere belief, as I stated previously, that in order for plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing *786 of pollution under § 116B.04, without benefit of an existing state or community noise pollution standard, should require the presentation of…”
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “) The methodology for applying the environmental legislation is set out in Minn.Stat. § 116B.04 (1978): [Wjhenever the plaintiff shall have made a prima facie showing that the conduct of the defendant has, or is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the…”
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Section 116B.04 requires defendants who do not rebut a plaintiff’s prima facie case to prove (1) that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and (2) that the conduct in issue is consistent with and reasonably required for the promotion of the public health, safety, and…”
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 483 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “It labelled the trial court’s balancing of environmental damage against the utility of the proposed improvements to be “dubious,” reasoning that the property, if left in its present condition, could eventually recover to a pristine state, but not if converted into a strip mall.”
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Twp. v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The defendant may also show, by way of an affirmative defense, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in fight of the state’s paramount concern…”
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Adams, 482 F. Supp. 170 (D. Minnesota 1979).
· cites it 6× “The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, in Minn.Stat. § 116B.04, articulates the basic standards of proof operative in suits challenging activity on environmental grounds under state law: In any other action maintained under section 116B.”
— Minn. Stat. § 116B.04(a) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 116B.04(b) — 2 cases
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.