Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Landowners and attorneys ask Legacy Committee to delay Outdoor Heritage funds, cite alleged easement and statutory violations
Loading...
Summary
Attorneys and a coalition of Roseau County landowners told a House Legacy Committee hearing that the Roseau Lake project relies on assumed easements, has caused crop and soil impacts and may violate the statute cited in testimony as “978.056 Subdivision 1”; they urged lawmakers to pause funding while litigation proceeds.
Multiple landowners, engineers and attorneys urged the Legacy Committee to delay release of Outdoor Heritage funds for the Roseau Lake Rehabilitation Project while litigation over the project’s scope and property rights is pending.
Eric Cardell, an attorney who identified himself as representing affected landowners, told the committee he had investigated the project's public‑land eligibility and cited "978.056 Subdivision 1," which he said requires Outdoor Heritage funding to be used only on public land. Cardell asserted the project involves soil excavation, a dam/weir structure and intentional flooding that extend onto privately owned parcels and said county property records and abstracts do not support the watershed district’s claimed easements.
Maxwell Becker, a colleague from the same firm, said landowners have documented physical and financial harms: crop losses, what they allege was the removal of 120 truckloads of compacted clay soil for project use without compensation, and damaged historical embankments. Becker and other attorneys described a coalition of dozens of landowners (testimony referenced between 40 and about 100 people affected) pursuing litigation and said due‑process concerns warrant holding funding until courts consider the claims.
Landowners and an independent engineer presented technical critiques. Patrick Knowritz, a professional engineer engaged by the Minnesota Landowners Coalition, said his six‑and‑a‑half‑year review found the project's flood‑control benefits are limited in scope (he estimated roughly 300 acres would see flood‑zone reductions, about 5% of the broader area said to be flooded under current conditions) and argued that compensation and fair market approaches were not evident.
Opponents asked the committee to withhold funds so courts can rule on whether project activities occurred on private land without adequate recorded easements or compensation. Proponents — including watershed and DNR officials — said the project followed public‑meeting and permitting processes, that an environmental assessment worksheet resulted in no EIS requirement, and that acquisition and easement processes were part of long‑running planning and acquisition efforts. DNR deputy director Pat Rivers told the committee explicitly there has been no use of eminent domain.
Committee members did not take a funding vote at the hearing. Representatives asked for documentation of title/easement records, accomplishment‑plan details and modeling data. Several members said they would defer to local representatives and the committee’s timeline as they weigh whether to proceed with the recommended allocation.
