South Dakota Law Archive - Attorney Blog | Natural Resources, Commercial Law

Archive for the ‘South Dakota Law’ Category

Brownfields: A Calculated Risk Missed by Tribes and South Dakota

Posted on: December 2nd, 2016
by David Ganje

The EPA defines a brownfield as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandated that the purchasers of property are liable for any contamination on this property regardless of when they acquired a site. However, CERCLA also created a defense known as the “innocent landowner defense” that can only be used if “appropriate due diligence” was conducted prior to the acquisition of the property. Appropriate due diligence has been exercised if an environmental site assessment (ESA), a thorough investigation of a site’s current and previous owners, has been prepared.

ESA’s have an average cost of about $4,000 for a small business acquisition and can vary depending on variety of factors specific to the job. The typical businesses that leave behind brownfields include gas stations, dry cleaners, railroads, oil refineries, liquid / chemical storage facilities, and steel / heavy manufacturing plants. Typical hazardous materials they leave behind include hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, heavy metals such as lead, and asbestos.

What is so dangerous about leaving these brownfields alone? Many of these brownfields are abandoned commercial properties and tend to be an eyesore in the community. Not only can this lead to decreased property values in surrounding neighborhoods, but the property can also pose serious health risks for new tenants and their neighbors.

Once a brownfield has been identified, the EPA provides two options for cleanup, revolving loan fund grants and cleanup grants. The purpose of revolving loan fund grants is to enable states, political subdivisions, and Native American tribes to make low interest loans to carryout cleanup activities at brownfields properties. Cleanup grants provide funding for a grant recipient to carry out cleanup activities at brownfields sites.

Since the cost of cleanup is considerable, the grants may provide several hundred thousand dollars towards the cost of cleanup. This money comes with strings attached, of course. Among other things, the costs are shared with the property owner, by at least 20 percent, and the brownfield site must be cleaned up within a three-year period.

Entities eligible for the EPA’s brownfield grants and loans include state, local and tribal governments; general purpose units of local government, land clearance authorities or other quasi-governmental entities; regional council or redevelopment agencies; states or legislatures; or nonprofit organizations. If you are not an eligible entity, you may still be able to receive assistance through your state or city.

In South Dakota, the agency that provides statewide brownfield assistance is the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR). DENR receives funding from the EPA for assessments and cleanup and have discretion in how to allocate those funds. For example, a national hotel chain looking to redevelop a brownfield site in South Dakota would not be eligible to apply for assistance through the EPA directly. However, the hotel chain could contact DENR for assistance and DENR could use their funds to perform an ESA or help with the cleanup.

In 2015, Sioux Falls received an assessment grant for $400,000 from the EPA. In addition to performing site assessments, they plan to use the money to update the city’s brownfields site inventory, prioritize sites, plan for cleanups at priority sites, and perform community outreach activities. They, like DENR, also have discretion in performing assessments and have made assessments available to entities who would not be eligible to apply for grants from the EPA.

With these options available to assist with brownfield redevelopment, why do so many brownfields remain untouched in South Dakota? In the last 5 years the EPA only awarded four grants in South Dakota. They gave an assessment grant to Sioux Falls and cleanup grants to Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. This suggests that other entities are not aware of the grants available to them, they are dissuaded from applying, or they do not have the structure to run a brownfields program.

Since South Dakota is not small Rhode Island, which is about the size of Brown County, businesses and other eligible entities find it is more economical to buy available land than it is to redevelop a brownfield site. This misses the mark. A brownfield site is many times in an attractive location. A brownfield site is often close to business activity and transportation or the prior owner would not have developed it.

Although the grants and other forms of assistance are “competitive,” grants are awarded based on guidelines. The deadlines for applying for assessment and cleanup grants from the EPA is December 20, 2016, so it’s not too late.

View the original article at FarmForum.net

South Dakota wetlands case before the US Supreme Court

Posted on: October 28th, 2016
by David Ganje

Congress passed the Food Security Act of 1985. Under the Swampbuster provisions of this Act the USDA may make determinations as to whether certain lands qualify as wetlands and whether wetlands which have been manipulated qualify as converted wetlands. The Act passed during the Reagan Administration was written to oppose the conversion of wetlands into cropland. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that a person found to have converted wetlands into cropland may become ineligible to receive farm program payments from the federal government. Some of these wetlands are what I call cattail swamps. I spent part of my youth hunting in them.

Faced several years ago with a wetlands designation for part of their land, South Dakota farmers Arlen and Cindy Foster challenged the USDA’s decision that certain of Foster’s acreage was a wetlands. These bureaucratic proceedings took over five years. The USDA based its decision, in part, on a comparable wetlands site some 30 miles away from the Foster’s property in Miner County. Wetland regions in the U.S. include the Prairie Potholes of both North and South Dakota as well as other states.

When the Foster case was later ruled upon by the U.S. District Court for South Dakota, the Fosters were unable to provide the court with substantial evidence that the USDA wetlands decision-making process was wrong. The District Court said that “Plaintiffs (the Fosters) have not shown, beyond a bare assertion, that the range of rainfall shared by both locations or the differences in the depth of the potholes renders the ( USDA comparison) site insufficiently “local.”” The trial judge also stated that the Fosters did not challenge the USDA expert testimony about rainfall averages on the land. The Fosters then appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals in its decision upheld the District Court and ruled that the original USDA agency decision was a reasonable interpretation of USDA regulations and that courts should give deference to the “informed discretion of responsible federal agencies.”

The Fosters have now filed a Petition to have the case heard by the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the Fosters, weak facts make bad law. The Foster case, in my view, will not be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the Foster Petition to the Supreme Court presents important arguments about agency authority to make decisions and about a court’s deference to an agency decision, the Court will also look at the underlying facts of the case before it. The facts of the Foster case are not strong. Because the Supreme Court may not hear the case, however, this does not mean that the issues raised by the Fosters are without grounds. Overreaching by the USDA in Swampbuster and wetlands decision and rulemaking is a genuine issue. Proposed legislation filed this year in Congress is intended to address some of these challenges. The sponsors of the filed bill argue that the new law would ensure more timely decisions by the USDA; would make the appeals process more efficient for a landowner/farmer and would improve government transparency in providing information to landowners and farmers affected by the Swampbuster process. The intention behind the current Swampbuster law has merit, but I am reminded of what my father said about raising me. “David, my intentions with you were good. It is the outcome that is questionable.”

David Ganje practices law in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law.

Free Land – South Dakota Style

Posted on: October 22nd, 2016
by David Ganje

Water and land do not mix well in South Dakota. In the last few days South Dakota gave up on its disputed claim to a 500 acre three-mile-long island known as Goat Island located in the Missouri River. The state conceded jurisdiction over the claimed island giving control to the federal government. The lack of media coverage analyzing the pros and cons of this recent withdrawal of South Dakota’s disputed Goat Island land claim is disappointing. The state had argued that Goat Island was on the South Dakota side of the river when Lewis and Clark mapped the river in 1804. This is a public matter involving a state claim to land on the Missouri River. What were the reasons for the settlement of the claim? How is it good for South Dakota? The media did not ask. The government press releases did not say. Now the island is in the hands of the feds. The hand of government did this deal, but we know not the reasons for the decision.

Property boundaries matter when your land is next to a river or a body of water. If the river deposits land onto your riverfront by “accretion”, then who owns it? Accretion is the gradual increase to land, notably riparian land, stemming from the movement of water. A meandering river has no master. Certainly man-made law has not corralled a meandering river with anything close to perfection, or to some landowners, with any degree of satisfaction. Questions come up when riverfront boundaries naturally shift due to erosion or accretion.

South Dakota has enacted several laws regarding accretion rights. The first important section states that when land forms from natural causes gradually over time next to a stream or river such land belongs to the owner of the bank, and it does not matter whether the water is navigable or not. The second concerns avulsion, or the violent or sudden carrying away of land by a river or stream to another part of the river or opposite bank. Under the statute the owner of the original land may reclaim the land within one year of the new owner taking possession. And the US Supreme Court has gotten into the act by ruling in the 1970s that the doctrine of accretion applies to changes in the river caused by both artificial as well as natural causes.

One lesson to learn from old man river is: Don’t use fuzzy boundaries for the legal description in your deeds and contracts. That is, do not let your lawyer describe the boundaries of your land by reference to a body of water.

It must be wonderful to be the state. South Dakota can give land away, and it can receive control of newly formed lakes for free. In a recent law case involving a dispute over the ownership of three newly-formed lakes in the state, the state Supreme Court ruled that effective ownership of these three newly formed lakes, all on privately owned land, should be held in the name of the state. The Parks case ruling stated the lakebeds would continue to be owned by the private landowners but the lakes and water of the lakes are to be controlled by the state for the benefit of the people of the state. The result: more than two thousand surface acres of land, now in the form of lakes, would be controlled and supervised by the state and not the landowners. Surprisingly, no mention of compensation to the landowners was made for this taking. The state taketh and the state giveth away. It is wonderful to be the state.

David Ganje practices law in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law.

Solid Waste Management In The Dakotas

Posted on: September 26th, 2016
by David Ganje

Municipal Landfills in North Dakota

The operation of a municipal landfill, also known as a solid waste facility, involves legal risk, such as damage caused from a landfill leaking or by landfill contamination of groundwater. Modern landfills are created with liners and other collection systems designed to prevent contamination of the ground, groundwater and the air. Despite good practices, in 2003 the U.S. Geological Survey (citing the EPA) opined that “all landfills eventually will leak into the environment.”

In North Dakota municipalities are required, in the event of a spill or leak, to show their financial ability to take corrective action, but only after the event has already occurred. North Dakota does not require municipal landfills to maintain environmental or pollution liability insurance. Consider a landfill just west of Watford City, which was recently found storing thousands of pounds of illegal radioactive material. The costs to clean up a landfill leak can be beyond the financial capability of a municipality if adequate preparations are not made. An operating landfill is not the only party who might be on the hook to pay for leaks. By way of illustration, Grand Forks has promised to indemnify the operator of their landfill from any and all claims, suits or causes of action that arise from the landfill.

To put this liability issue in financial perspective, the cost to clean up a leaking 150-acre landfill next to a drinking water supply in Burnsville, Minn., was recently estimated by the state at $64 million. These clean up events are the type addressed by landfill pollution insurance, but few municipalities seem inclined to carry the insurance. I am not aware of any North Dakota municipal landfill that carries pollution liability insurance. This is akin to riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Landfills in the state are, in many cases, owned and run by cities and counties. Understand that municipal landfills are dutiful in complying with state and federal environmental regulations. State regulators and municipalities are following relevant statutes and rules. That is not the issue. The challenge is the risk of pollution liability, also called environmental liability – no small matter in today’s world, with costs that can reach into the millions.

Municipalities in North Dakota are not necessarily alone when a leak occurs. North Dakota maintains the Municipal Waste Landfill Release Compensation Fund, which would reimburse municipalities for reasonable corrective costs, including labor, testing, machinery, and consulting fees. However, the owner or operator must pay the first $100,000 for corrective action. Moreover, the Fund will not protect owners and operators who are negligent, or who caused the leak through misconduct, at the sole determination of the State. The Fund will not even reimburse for costs incurred through bodily injury or property damage. It is not a catch-all for landfill environmental liability.

If the Municipal Waste Landfill Release Compensation Fund cannot handle the issue, the release might be enough to trigger the State Disaster Relief Fund, which is there to help deal with a variety of issues, including widespread and severe water or air contamination. A problem on the scale experienced in Burnsville could be met with this State fund to help. A $64 million cleanup would however reduce the Disaster Relief Fund to near-empty, as North Dakota has just over $70 million currently in the fund.

Unfortunately for municipalities, when a serious landfill leak that cannot be handled at the city level occurs, the Environmental Protection Agency may become involved, triggering a Federal cleanup. Once the EPA gets involved, costs can skyrocket for everyone, and the EPA will bring suit against every party, including a negligent municipality, involved in the leak to pay for the cleanup costs. Facing off against the EPA in a million-dollar suit is the last place a municipality wants to be. It would be better to be able to handle landfill leaks with insurance, rather than involving other bureaucratic organizations who will use money inefficiently and then demand repayment.

This fund or ‘security account’ held by the state is not a complete answer, but it is a good start. Compare this with South Dakota which leaves municipalities buck naked to the law. South Dakota leaves municipalities at great legal risk. The South Dakota delegating law states that owners or operators of landfills are forever responsible for any pollution or legal problems caused by stored solid waste. The state has no special fund to deal with this issue. South Dakota’s rules allow a municipality to keep a separate fund (money deposited in a bank account, for example) to protect against the costs of a leaking landfill, or alternatively for coverage of such a leak by purchasing pollution insurance. Nevertheless, to maintain a separate fund large enough to cover a landfill leak is beyond the financial capability of municipalities in both states. Brown County, the third largest county in South Dakota, maintains a separate fund in the amount of $240,000. That is not enough money to cover a possible leak. Brown County is one of the municipalities that does not carry landfill pollution liability insurance. This is a problem, especially considering that the Brown County landfill makes a profit for the county. Yet Brown County will not consider pollution liability insurance to protect the landfill.

Just because the North Dakota has some financial support for landfills does not mean that preventative measures should be ignored. Government operated enterprises should not be so callous. The old concept of sovereign immunity (“the king can do no wrong”) is quickly becoming old law. The growing need for landfills is not going away. To the contrary, solid waste is increasing yearly. While North Dakota is more prepared than its neighbor to the south, there are still things that should be done. The State should protect municipal landfills by requiring landfills to hold insurance covering operating pollution events, and municipal landfills should choose to do so whenever possible.

North Dakota is what I tongue-in-cheek call a nuisance friendly state

Posted on: September 19th, 2016
by David Ganje

Because of unique nuisance statutes and case law, North Dakota is what I tongue-in-cheek call a nuisance friendly state. For background on this interesting topic, please see my article in the Bakken Weekly, “Nuisance Laws on the Bakken.” The present article discusses a common defense simply stated as, ‘But I got the permit. Why am I a nuisance?’

North Dakota statutes protect one from a lawsuit in nuisance if another statute grants authority to act in a particular manner. Those statutes are strictly applied to preserve the meaning legislature gave to them. However, in extreme cases the party may yet be subject to a suit in nuisance if the act allowed by statute is performed in a negligent or unreasonable manner. For example, a statute granted the City of Dickinson the authority to operate a sewage system as part of its governmental function. The statute even allowed the city to discharge sewage into any river.

“The offense was so great that a chemist who was called as a witness for the plaintiff testified, without objection, that the hydrogen-sulphide gas, which the city engineer said was the source of the noxious odor, is about 17% heavier than air; that in water it has a disagreeable taste, and that when inhaled it causes nausea; that it is poisonous and will cause headaches if inhaled in sufficient quantities.”

That said, a nuisance claim was successfully brought against the city because the amount was so excessive that it was deemed unreasonable. The court said that “by casting its sewage into the river with improper and insufficient treatment for a long period of time, the city was remiss in its duty and it may not now rely upon its legislative immunity to protect it from responding in damages.”

Let us look at a nuisance lawsuit further. North Dakota derived the statute N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 42-01-12 that states “Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute shall be deemed a nuisance,” from California, and in doing so, North Dakota has determined that if you are conducting business in a district zoned for that type of activity, you are not completely immune from a nuisance lawsuit. Take the famous grain terminal case for example,

“Harmon Motors is located in an area zoned C-2 “a general commercial district,” and GTA was located in an area zoned N-1 “a light industrial district.” No evidence was introduced that GTA was operating in violation of any city zoning ordinance or that GTA was in violation of any health ordinances. For that matter, the Williston zoning ordinance passed in 1970 provides for an exception for those businesses which were in operation when the zoning ordinance was adopted and GTA was in operation when that zoning ordinance was adopted. This, however, is not per se conclusive of the issues.”

The court indicated that even though the ‘offending party’ had been both grandfathered in as well as in compliance with city zoning ordinances, all this did not mean that the offending party was in the clear. In this case North Dakota also considered whether the party making the complaint has “come to the nuisance,” that is, moved into an area where a nuisance-like activity already existed. North Dakota courts gave less favorability to the complaining party and indicated that the burden of proof required to defeat the “coming to the nuisance” doctrine is very high.

The defense of ‘I got the permit. Why am I a nuisance?’ nevertheless goes even further in North Dakota than other jurisdictions. An oil drilling operation had been flaring the excess gas it produced. This caused diminished air quality and excessive odors. But the court in Kartch v. EOG Res., Inc., determined that the drilling operation was not a nuisance because the operators acted within the guidelines set forth in the applicable statute and their practices were customary in the oil industry in North Dakota.
Special consideration is also given to agricultural operations. If the agricultural operation has been in operation for more than one year and was not a nuisance at the time it began it shall not become a nuisance. Additionally, North Dakota recently passed a law that bars other laws from limiting farmer’s rights to “employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” This was a necessary modernization to current statutes protecting farmers from surrounding urban developments.

Now to be sure, no legal system would be in proper order without some ambiguity, and as evidenced above there are exceptions to every rule. The takeaway: Just having the permit is not enough. And just being in statutory compliance is not enough. A claim in nuisance could still be successful in court.

David Ganje practices law in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law in South Dakota and North Dakota. His website is Lexenergy.net.