(Excerpts)
- July, 1998When Public Benefits...Public Should Pay Edwin Halvorson of rural Trail MN provides a classic example of how government effectively has taken away individual rights regarding private property. He has been trying for years to find a way out of his dilemma to no avail. While our nation prides itself in the promise of freedom for all, Halvorson sees that promise as an illusion rather than reality. Had he gone ahead with his original plans 16 years ago, he might have avoided at least part of his present problem. But he yielded to outside influences and became a victim if circumstance. Sadly, he is not the only person who has been similarly affected by governmental changes. Back in 1982 Halvorson wanted to drain a wetland area on his farm in Section 15 of Hickory township. Even that long ago, a permit to drain was required from the Red Lake Watershed District because the wetland was over five acres in size. Watershed district engineer Charles Anderson whose report to the board noted that about half of Section 15 consisted of wetlands and the upland areas included woods, grasslands and small- cultivated fields inspected it. "The situation was discussed with the landowner, Mr. Halvorson," Anderson wrote. "I believe that he understands the public benefits of the present land use. However, he is compelled by economic reasons to drain the land for agriculture." Anderson added that although it was his opinion that the land should not be drained, but he said he did not find sufficient grounds to recommend denial of the permit. He recommended that the district or other agencies explore the possibilities of preserving the area for its wildlife and flood control values. On May 18, 1982, Halvorson was issued Permit No. 82019 to drain the wetland. On Sept. 27, 1982, Halvorson received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources noting the department had received his permit application to "drain a portion of wetland 57-18 as located on your property in the N 1/2 of Section 15, T152N, R39W, Pennington county." It cited wetland law, noted that a field inspection had been made and that "your application for drainage of wetland 57-18 is denied." After discussion and negotiation, Halvorson accepted an offer by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to enroll 182.3 acres in the State Water Bank Program. He was told this was a 10-year contract that was renewable for a 30-year period. Total value of the 182.3 acres was appraised a $117,040-including 179.6 acres classified as tillable and valued at $650 per acre. A deduction of $5,380-the estimated cost to drain the wetland-was made from the total, leaving a market value of $111,600. Annual payment by the State to Halvorson for the 10-year contract starting in 1983 was established at $5,580 or five percent of the appraised market value. We doubt the people of the State of Minnesota received $55,800 of value over 10 years of the contract, but that's another subject. Halvorson was satisfied with the payment. The DNR was satisfied with the contract. The public's interest in the private wetland-whatever that might be-was preserved. Peace prevailed. On June 5, 1992, Halvorson received a note from Bruce Gerbig, Protected Waters Supervisor of the DNR, stating that a representative of the department would be inspecting the wetland "to monitor the interest the State of Minnesota has in this wetland." It also stated: "Since your enrollment in the State Water Bank Program will be expiring at the end of this year, you should be aware that provisions of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act prohibits renewal of your existing contract. Expiration of your contract does not authorize you to drain your wetland...." Since the State Water Bank contract expired in 1992, Halvorson has been left without income from his property. He is prohibited from draining it for agriculture. Because it was in the State Water Bank program, it has no crop history and is ineligible for federal Conservation Reserve Program enrollment. For all practical purposes, Mr. Halvorson is effectively denied use of his property. But he sill owns it, and as owner is required to pay taxes. His taxes on the half-section (320 acres) containing the 182.3-acre former Water Bank site total $1,056 per year. Of that total, $800 is in a ditch assessment. Two years of the ditch assessment have been paid-with 23 years remaining. Edwin is obligated over 25 years to pay $20,000 in ditch assessment- presumably to benefit land he is prohibited from draining-plus the regular taxes on the property. Everyone we have talked to who is familiar with the situation agrees that Edwin, and others in similar positions, really have no way out of their dilemma. The laws are in place, and even if property owners expend the funds to hire attorneys and take their cases to court, it is likely they would lose on an individual basis. It is the unfairness of the plight of people like Edwin Halvorson that has led to formation of Landowner's Rights groups seeking to restore constitutional freedoms. Few would disagree that the restrictions placed on what Edwin can do with his property constitutes a "takings" by the government. Under the Amendments to our Constitution, our governments can not take private property without "just compensation." Edwin Halvorson should not be faced with his long-standing problem. If there is a public value to prohibiting drainage of his wetland, the public should compensate him justly for it. The Water Bank Program he accepted in good faith in 1983 did that. The 1991 Wetlands Act that terminated the Water Bank Program does not. The state legislature violated the constitution in creating this situation and should be held accountable for restoring private rights. And it shouldn't have to take an expensive court case to show legislators the error of their ways. Comment: MLRA would also like to add that many landowners have lost land to unconcerned legislators and power hungry bureaucrats. MLRA is working to re-open the Wetland Conservation Act for changes (preferably repeal). It should also be noted that the Minnesota Constitution reads: Article 1 Sec. 13. PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured. Wake up your legislators this November; tell them how you are going to VOTE!