Opinion ID: 1700992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: overriding circumstances

Text: A type IV wetland is defined in the administrative regulations as a pond, meaning a land depression where the soil is covered with six inches [15 centimeters] to three feet [0.91 meters] or more of water throughout the growing season. Section 89-02-01-02(10), N.D.Adm.Code. Section 89-02-01-16(4)(e), N.D.Adm.Code, prohibits drainage of type IV wetlands unless overriding circumstances exist. The State Engineer found that overriding circumstances existed to justify the drainage of 15 type IV wetlands. The State Engineer determined that one overriding circumstance was that 5 of them were along the only reasonably available route for the White Spur Drain. The overriding circumstance for drainage of the other 10 was that the soil underneath them is prime farmland. The district court rejected the State Engineer's determination of overriding circumstances as contrary to law. While an administrative agency is certainly bound by its own duly issued regulations [ see Fercho v. Montpelier Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 14, 312 N.W.2d 337, 341 (N.D. 1981) ], an agency nevertheless has a reasonable range of informed discretion in the interpretation and application of its own rules. See Quarles v. McKenzie Public School District No. 34, 325 N.W.2d 662, 670 (N.D. 1982); Dameron v. Neumann Bros., Inc., 339 N.W.2d 160, 162 (Iowa 1983); 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 349 (1962). Thus, courts generally defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation when the language is so technical that only a specialized agency has the experience and expertise to understand it or when the language is ambiguous. See Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Minn. 1981). No deference is called for when the regulating language is clear. We cannot say that the State Engineer's interpretation of overriding circumstances was contrary to law. The term is broad, if not ambiguous. Thus, the State Engineer was entitled to a reasonable range of discretion in interpreting and applying the rule. The State Engineer determined that the Project would not be effective unless the drain traveled along 5 type IV wetlands. Although installation of sills to preserve these wetlands was considered, the State Engineer determined the area was too flat and the sills would cause more flooding than presently existed. The State Engineer found that prohibiting these wetlands from being drained would prevent the entire watershed from benefiting from the drainage project. We believe the State Engineer could reasonably find that this constituted overriding circumstances. We also find nothing illogical in the State Engineer's determination that overriding circumstances exist because 10 of the wetlands are underlain by prime farmland. Reclamation of farmland is not the sole purpose of the White Spur Drain. It is also intended to alleviate damage to roads from flooding. Moreover, prime farmland is not merely a grandiose cliché for any kind of land suitable for farming, but is a distinct category of soils defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [6] Prime farmland soils produce the highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and economic resources, and farming these soils results in the least damage to the environment. Soil survey of Bottineau County North Dakota, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, at p. 49 (Issued May 1982). The State Engineer recognized that these type IV wetlands were classified as prime farmland and that they could be drained without harm to downstream landowners. Agricultural productivity is important in implementing water resource policy. Section XX-XX-XX-XX(4)(f), N.D.Adm.Code. Furthermore, the State Engineer, by keeping intact some type IV wetlands in the drainage area, did take steps to protect wildlife and recreational values. Balancing the competing interests, the State Engineer found overriding circumstances to allow drainage. We are not convinced of any error in this determination.