Court Opinion

ID: 9741959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:04:44.740705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.531516
License: Public Domain

Yetka, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result, but only because plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on appeal on a crucial issue.
During the delay that has occurred, it is entirely possible that additional lands not originally benefited by the proposed drainage ditch would now be benefited. However, as the majority opinion points out, plaintiffs have not presented such evidence and, therefore, have not met the burden imposed upon them in challenging the legislation.
Finally, it appears to me that the entire drainage. laws now on the books should be looked at by the legislature in the light of the new environmental protection statutes added during recent years, compiled in Minn. St. cc. 116 to 116H. Surely, under the new environmental laws serious doubt as to the desirability of any general drainage schemes must exist.
It appears ludicrous to me that simply to gain a few acres of farm land, swamps and marshes should be drained by one unit of government while another unit of government seeks state funds to acquire and protect wetlands, also to have the same farming areas that are the most active in the drainage schemes seek Federal and state disaster relief due to the effects of drought during dry cycles.