Opinion ID: 1578403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Expenditure Of Public Funds For Acquisition Of Pollution Control Equipment At Existing Facilities Of Private Businesses Constitutes An Expenditure For A Public Purpose.

Text: The Act specifically declares that it was enacted to promote the welfare and prosperity of the state . . . by reducing, controlling, and preventing environmental pollution.... Minn.Stat. § 116J.89, subd. 2 (Supp.1983). By providing such financial assistance, the cost to small businesses of pollution control equipment and disposal of waste will be reduced to a manageable level. Minn.Stat. § 116J.89, subd. 1 (1982). The Big Stone pollution control project consists of the installation of a forcemain and irrigation system to provide waste water treatment which will enable the company to meet state and federal water pollution laws and rules at its facility located in Arlington, Minnesota. The public has an interest in the prevention of pollution of air and water and land in the State and, further, that the police powers of the State extend to the control of pollution and disposal of waste in the State. The Minnesota Supreme Court has explicitly approved the expenditure of public funds for the construction of public facilities for the control of pollution. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Hatfield, 294 Minn. 260, 200 N.W.2d 572 (1973). In that case, the Court approved the issuance of state bonds for pollution control loans and grants to political subdivisions for the construction of pollution control facilities. In upholding the state bonds, the Court held: Pollution of our air and waters has now become one of the chief concerns of our citizenry. It must be generally conceded that alleviation of pollution in our waters in order that they may be made safe for human consumption and safe for recreational purpose and the propagation of fish involves the preservation of the public health as well as the public welfare and as such it constitutes a governmental function. . . . Id. 294 Minn. at 265, 200 N.W.2d at 575. The PCA case is persuasive evidence of the fact that a public purpose is served by pollution control expenditures. Pursuant to the test formulated in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 89 N.W.2d 635 (1958), discussed above, an activity has a public purpose if it is one which will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government. Id. at 184, 89 N.W.2d at 643. Thus, it first must be established that a public benefit will inure from the proposed activity. In this case the public benefit is clear. The construction of the pollution control project at Big Stone is designed to eliminate runoff of waste water which has resulted in pollution to public waters of the State. The benefit to the public from abatement of pollution is clear, whether the abatement of pollution results from the construction of private or publicly owned pollution control facilities. [5] It is well settled that legislative determinations of public purpose should be overruled only if it can be established that the particular expenditure is manifestly arbitrary or capricious. E.g., R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331, 340 (1978). Defendant's naked assertion that the benefit to the public is only incidental in comparison to the benefit to Big Stone does not satisfy the heavy burden which the defendant must bear in establishing that the challenged expenditure is not for a public purpose. Defendant's burden is particularly heavy since it is well settled that a private corporation's receipt of a large benefit from public financial assistance does not in and of itself invalidate the project. City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 357, 178 N.W.2d 594 (1970). The combatting of pollution is clearly a subject matter which is within the competence of the Legislature. The benefits from the installation of pollution control facilities to the public through the protection of the air, land and waters of the State is clear. While some private benefit will result, the project is sufficiently public in nature to withstand constitutional challenge. The second factor set forth by the court in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. at 184-85, 89 N.W.2d at 643, which must be satisfied before a public purpose can be established is that the project financed is one that is directly related to the function of government. Again, the abatement of pollution is a legitimate function of government. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Hatfield, 294 Minn. at 265, 200 N.W.2d at 575; Gardebring Aff. The great weight of authority from other jurisdictions has upheld the constitutionality of providing public financial assistance for pollution control facilities to private companies through revenue bond financing. E.g., Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of PA 1975 No. 301, 400 Mich. 270, 254 N.W.2d 528 (1977); Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.H. 201, 304 A.2d 89 (1973); State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 89 Nev. 330, 512 P.2d 1321 (1973); Opinion of the Justices, 359 Mass. 769, 268 N.E.2d 149 (1971); Fickes v. Missoula Co., 155 Mont. 258, 470 P.2d 287 (1970). For the reasons discussed above, the expenditure of public funds for pollution control projects at private facilities is constitutionally permissible because it serves a public purpose.