Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Archive for the ‘Articles Blog’ Category

Water Conservation is Triage Only

Posted on: July 14th, 2022
by David Ganje

When a government experiences a water source emergency, rules covering water conservation by water users is triage.  I readily concede triage is necessary.  ‘Triage’ in the subject at hand is the management of a scare commodity among those who need it.  Balancing community water needs to levels of available service in an emergency is important.  Managing the allocation of water use at a time when users have reduced access does not however address the cause of the problem.   A water conservation ordinance specifying various levels of water use by residents cannot fix the source of a water use emergency.

A municipal well operated by the city of Spearfish has been out of operation for over a month.   Using cubic feet of water per second based on all city water use permits, the shut-down well is almost 18% of the city’s total water draw if the  wells were all  drawing at capacity at the same time.  The shut-down well is one of the larger city wells.  The breakdown of the well was initially diagnosed as a mechanical problem.  At this time this Spearfish deep-water well and related infrastructure has not yet been examined by outside well experts.  Media reports and city records do not speak to other related issues.  The current diagnosis is described as a structural problem (this may mean the pump, the well structure itself or intakes).  Other comments concerned the costs for the anticipated well repair.  It is important for government to provide and budget for well maintenance and repair, but that is only a part of resource management. The record contains no discussion about a review of municipal water supply reliability under the current city water system.

Two common problems with potable water supply are 1.) securing the source of water and 2.) accessing the source of water.  Contingency plans for well failure which include voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions are normal.  Most systems have such user rules.  Unfortunately, most water use contingency plans are limited to addressing how much water can be used after a problem has been discovered.  Nevertheless when an unanticipated failure leads to a water shortage of a necessary resource more is called for.  A government contingency plan which deals with the current effects of well failure, but which neglects provisions dealing with possible causes of the problem is an incomplete plan.

A water resource contingency plan should include provisions for short term replacement of water sources.  A contingency plan should also describe in detail a process for securing long term alternative water sources – bureaucrats call this ‘supply augmentation’.   Operational problems should also be considered in a written plan.  There are lots of these:  water main break, contamination, suspected tampering, storage failure and water system depressurization.  Has the city analyzed the area observation wells for the Madison aquifer in which the well is drilled?  Has the city considered any fluctuations or declines in groundwater levels?   Does the city have a long-term efficiency target for its municipal well system?

Water use conservation is not a fix-all. If the city is incorrect about the mechanical issue, what next?  In the case of an actual water crisis a water conservation program would only be effective for a brief time and would do nothing to address proper resource management and planning.

Brownfields

Posted on: July 5th, 2022
by Scott Siegwald

Attributed with some hesitancy to F Scott Fitzgerald is the following,  “There were no second acts in American lives”   Let us see if this applies to contaminated properties.    Brownfields are properties for which the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a contaminant. Left unchecked, brownfields are a blight.    Think of brownfields as a past tense activity.  Something was done by man to or on the property that created an environmental problem.  Government programs exist for which funding may be available for a  brownfield  property rehab.

Liability for brownfield sites is found in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).  Based on available “reported” data, South Dakota has 151 known and documented brownfields. The number is probably larger however as there are likely others undetected and unreported. To label a property a brownfield, an  environmental site assessment (ESA) must be completed.   Brownfield rehab may be done to government as well as private properties. For governments looking to evaluate a possible brownfield site, a targeted brownfield assessment (TBA) is an option. TBA services include site assessments, cleanup options and costs estimates, and community outreach.

 Brownfields are not  superfund sites.  Brownfields differ in that a brownfield is contamination ‘to a lesser degree.’  Superfund sites might be a candidate for big time cleanup.  Brownfields are smaller deals, smaller property sites,  with not so much money available, and with not as much public exposure of a property’s contamination. Your local church or school might be examples of brownfields.

While the cost for fixing brownfields can be high, the health and safety hazards of brownfields are real.   Brownfields may include physical health hazards, such as uncovered holes, unsafe structures, and sharp objects.  These properties also pose a risk to communities because of potential human exposure to hazardous chemicals.  A brownfield site whether reported or not usually lowers the value of the property itself and can lower values of nearby properties.

If a county or city wants to cleanup a brownfield to allow for its future use no easy solution exists. The EPA awards competitive grants to government entities and certain non-profit organizations for cleanup activities  but does not  come riding in on a white horse to completely fix the problem.   Government grants allocate funds mostly for assessing and classifying brownfields.   Private property owners do not have quite as many opportunities for financial support for remediation as do government or non-profit sites.  With all legal programs the devil is in the details;  brownfield development agreements between parties and the government are intricate contracts detailing the legal responsibilities of the parties.  An agreement will detail specific remediation steps concerning the contaminated property, describe the intended reuse of the property and disclose  and justify the reuse technology proving that the rehab will leave the property suitable for the future uses identified.

Development of brownfield sites requires serious investigative due diligence of the property and its history. Brownfield development when completed with proper due diligence, I call it rehab, can lead to successful reuse of the site.  

     As stated, the EPA provides some financial assistance to eligible applicants through competitive grant programs.  Additionally, funding support is provided under state and tribal programs through a separate mechanism.  Let us consider a non-industrial city for illustration purposes.  We will use Aberdeen as our example.   The EPA in 2020 gave the city of Aberdeen a Brownfields Assessment Grant.  Aberdeen’s foray into the world of brownfields provides a good sampling of the broad spectrum of the subject.  EPA grant funds were to be used by the city to inventory and prioritize sites as a part of its assessment. Grant funds were also to be used to develop six cleanup plans and conduct area-wide planning activities.  The Aberdeen  priority sites under the grant included:   the former Washington School Building (a building about as old as George Washington himself in which I was required to attend classes in high school.  I could have told the powers-that-be way back then all about the building’s issues), a petroleum release site, a former dry-cleaning site, the Northwestern Railroad site which was a creosote pit, and the former Shopko retail site.

Yes, there are Second Acts in America – at least for some contaminated properties.  One of my clients made a fairly good living cleaning up such properties. There ain’t no reason to be caught between the past and the present.  Make something of what you got now and go forward.

Are acts of God acts of man?

Posted on: September 2nd, 2018
by David Ganje

Man imposes his laws upon man. James Madison tells us that laws should not be overly voluminous or overly incoherent. Good luck on that score. I used to carry around the written U.S. tax code in law school for our tax class. I figured carrying around the tax code was good enough such that I did not feel compelled to go to the gym for exercise. That was before computers when law codes were written on heavy papyrus rolls.

Man by law has made a law of ‘an act of God.’ An act of God or what is also called a ‘force majeure event’ is an event beyond the control of parties to a contract which may prevent completion of the contract. And importantly an act of God may be grounds for cancellation of the contract. An act of God clause is the adult business version of the dog ate my homework. Wouldn’t an act of God be a good defense in criminal court? Boy, I sure could have used it for myself in juvenile court.

How a contract party is to deal with a surprise event is written into the agreed upon terms of the contract. In contract writing an event that is not a part of the contract obligation but affects the ability to complete the agreement is the so-called an act of God clause. These clauses also go by the fancy name of a ‘force majeure clause.’ Such clauses are a man-made road map showing what to do because of an unplanned event. This type of clause is a little bit like putting the genie back in the bottle after it has been out on the town partying too much. One finds these clauses in wind energy agreements, right-of-way agreements, easements, oil and gas leases and general construction contracts.

Under some clauses, government rules which prevent a party from completing the contract may constitute grounds for a party’s legal non-performance of the agreement. So this is one situation in which you can legitimately blame the government.

What are these magical “events” which will excuse a party from completing a contact? There are as many possible events as man can devise in his mischievous little mind. An act of God event is simply whatever the agreed upon contract says it is. This is man-made law. Here is an example of an actual agreement: “The term ‘force majeure’ shall be Acts of God, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial disturbances, acts of the public enemy, wars, blockades, riots, epidemics, lightning, earthquakes, explosions, accidents or repairs to machinery or pipes, delays of carriers, inability to obtain materials or rights of way on reasonable terms, acts of public authorities, or any other causes. . . not within the control of the [contracting party] and which by the exercise of due diligence [the contracting party] is unable to overcome.” Looking at this clause, I will provide the reader with a few comments. First, it is written by someone rushing a bunch of ideas into a clause. It’s a little too shot-gunny. It is overbroad and needs focus. And it was written by a lawyer who has not experienced a tornado, flood or a debilitating blizzard.

No question. An act of God clause is one of several underappreciated stepsisters (that’s an East River expression) when parties and their attorneys draft and negotiate an agreement. Usually in a transaction parties give energetic attention to ‘The Money’ or to the conditions of contract performance, not realizing that an act of God event can cause equal if not greater trouble. How quickly money throws one off the scent. It’s the old story of greed outstripping prudence. The scope of an act of God clause depends on the specific terms of the agreement, so pay attention my honorable readers. Do not avoid focused common sense in the early stages when negotiating and drafting any agreement. Otherwise an uninsured accident is just over the next hill. An act of God is a peril outside of man’s control.

Arbitration – always look a gift horse in the mouth

Posted on: July 12th, 2018
by David Ganje

Mandatory arbitration is a court of last resort. When one arbitrates under mandatory arbitration there is no appeal, or even a right of reconsideration of the matter by the arbitrator if something went wrong. One’s legal rights to challenge a final arbitration decision are very limited. The arbitrator’s decision is almost absolute.

I know. I have sat as an arbitrator and have represented parties in arbitration.

Arbitration is defined as an alternative to litigation in which the parties are required to put their dispute before an arbitrator. The arbitrator, for good or ill, and without the benefit of a black robe, makes the final decision on the dispute. If one’s agreement contains a mandatory arbitration clause, you can’t go to court. (There are minor exceptions, but we will save that for another sermon).

Mandatory arbitration clauses can be found in easements, real estate contracts, water rights agreements, some mineral rights contracts, business agreements, and are often found in a public contract, that is, a contract with a government body or agency. An arbitration clause is sometimes buried in the agreement’s terms particularly in consumer agreements. Consumer agreements containing arbitration clauses, as described by an old labor leader, are akin to negotiations between a lion and a lamb in which the lamb wakes up the next morning in the stomach of the lion.

I find it commonplace for parties, and their attorneys, not to seriously consider the issue of arbitration when negotiating the language to be placed in an agreement. Big mistake. Never approach a goat from the front. Never approach a horse from the rear. Never approach an arbitration clause from any angle unless you and your well-seasoned counsel, have weighed the pros and cons while in a sober state of mind. Arbitration is a shortcut to justice, but there are many pitfalls, cliffs, dark places and precipices along the way.

South Dakota statutory law enforces and encourages arbitration clauses. And regarding the legitimacy of arbitration the state Supreme Court stated as recently as this year, “The plain language of [state law], being clear, certain and unambiguous, does not provide for a right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration.” The South Dakota Supreme Court some time ago gave its official blessing to arbitration as a dispute resolution process: “This Court has consistently favored the resolution of disputes by arbitration.”

Arbitration is faster and less expensive than litigation. These are its two most compelling attractions. But one rolls the dice in arbitration in that one can never be sure of the wisdom, fairness and competence of the sole judge of the affair – the arbitrator. In some arbitration clauses the parties have a right to agree upon a particular arbitrator. Arbitration itself is a private process meaning it is not a public event. This can be advantage in several situations.

So what are problems with arbitration? I have already painted a pretty colored picture in this piece, but will here elaborate a bit more.

No appeals are allowed. In small-dollar conflicts the costs of arbitration are not always justified. The rules of evidence in arbitration are a bit loose and that can be problematic. A pre-hearing exchange of evidence between the disputing parties is not as well managed as it is in litigation. If an arbitrator does not carefully follow the relevant law dealing with the problem, the decision of that arbitrator will still stand as a final decision.

Judges are a bit different. A judge is constantly looking over his or her shoulder. A judge is, or at least should be, always considering the consequences of a decision from the point of view of another court — the appellate court.

‘Ghost claims’ of dead pioneers haunt South Dakota water rights

Posted on: September 26th, 2016
by David Ganje

Author Seth Tupper Journal staff

It’s a safe bet that neither John P. Plunkett nor Edward Lynch will show up to defend their water rights when a state board considers terminating them later this year.

That’s because Plunkett and Lynch are dead — and have been for a long time.

Yet their joint rights to divert water from Rapid Creek live on, because they obtained the rights in 1896, more than a decade before the government of South Dakota began regulating the use of water.

The grandfathered status of the old Plunkett-Lynch water rights means they are still technically in force, as are 437 other sets of water rights filed prior to the adoption of state water-use laws in 1907. Many of the rights are for large amounts of water, and some are attached to famous names like Seth Bullock, the legendary lawman of the Deadwood gold-rush era who still technically owns a water right on the Redwater River in Butte County.

One modern expert refers to the pre-regulatory water rights as “ghost claims,” and their potential to haunt modern water management is highlighted by the Plunkett-Lynch case. The case could soon be the subject of an adversarial hearing involving state regulators who want to cancel the water rights and a local rancher, Richard Rausch, who wants to keep the rights attached to the land he leases…..

To read the entire article, visit the Rapid City Journal here.

Also available via FarmForum.net