Posted on 04/26/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by horsappl
In January 2014 I was notified that there would be a hearing explaining that I am required to plant 15 foot strips of perennial vegetation (buffer strips) along ditches as described by my local watershed agency, the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Watershed District. I went to the meeting where the agents explained that once these are in place they might allow me to cut hay on the buffer strips, if I request it. In other words, they now control these strips. In legal terms this is an easement.
My father and I studied this law, and found that we will need to level a 5 foot tall berm along a mile of ditch that was created in 1911 when the ditch was dug, which contains boulders and mature trees, and then plant the buffer strip. We are also required to weed control and maintain this buffer strip, or pay a fine. Once these buffer strips are in place, additional buffer strips may be taken along field ditches, which will make areas of fields too small to turn equipment around.
I researched the history of this law and it was passed in 1977 to stop sediment from flowing into the Minnesota River due to erosion of the hilly terrain and light soil in that area. My land is in northern MN, and is flat. This law only affects watershed districts, which are similar to a homeowner association in that the land owners own the ditches. This falls outside of Minnesota's eminent domain law because the public does not take possession of the buffer strip land, the watershed district does. The trigger to implement these buffer strips is a Redetermination of Benefits, which is a reassessment of property value along the ditches.
Further research found the impetus for the buffer strip implementation was published by the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) in a document named "Drainage in Minnesota", hosted on the MN Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA) website. Statements in this publication include: "Climate Change and Managing Risk", "Growing Global Population", "What is MN Doing? - Redetermination of Benefits". This is environmental activism within a MN government agency.
I spoke with Rep. Dan Fabian, who represents the area where my land is located, on many occasions during this struggle. I met with Rep. Bud Nornes and Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen (my local representatives) in August of 2014 about the taking of the easement along my land. Rep. Nornes said he could get a couple lines changed in the 1977 law, but probably could not get the law repealed, and Sen. Ingebrigtsen said he will invite me to the MN Senate to speak about this issue.
In September 2014, the watershed board decided not to acquire the buffer strips due to cost to the land owners.
In December 2014, Governor Dayton and Pheasants Forever hosted the Minnesota Pheasant Summit, where the idea was proposed for the state to acquire buffer strips to increase pheasant habitat.
I did not hear from Rep. Fabian, Rep. Nornes, or Sen. Ingebrigtsen again, so I assumed they had success reducing the impact of the 1977 buffer strip law in the 2015 legislative session.
My father was told that a new buffer law was passed, and we needed to read it. It was 103f.48, and it was passed in the 2015 session. It affects lakes, ponds, sloughs, rivers and county ditches. It includes all that is wrong with the old law, and now it actually violates Article 1, Section 13 of the MN Constitution requiring just compensation, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution because the property is taken for public use and the 14th Amendment Due Process clause. The landowner is also forced to plant and maintain vegetation on these buffer strips, in violation of the 13th Amendment. Even more absurd, the State takes control of this land but does not take legal possession, so the owner still pays property tax. The Republican majority in the MN House in 2015, including Dan Fabian, Bud Nornes and Bill Ingebrigtsen, all voted in favor of this additional land taking and coercion.
Marshall, Pennington and Kittson Counties have all written letters of refusal to implement the buffer strips. Other counties are ignoring the requirement. Traverse County has threatened criminal prosecution for violators. The DNR has mapped where they demand buffer strip implementation, up to 50 feet wide. So far, 640 miles of ditches in 71 counties have been removed from the DNR maps after farmers took legal action because these were private ditches, where the state has no authority.
Buffer strips are harmful to water quality in regions of agriculture in Minnesota. Research in the Red River Valley has shown that buffer strips increase phosphate loading in the river system, and University of Manitoba soil scientists have tried to stop the implementation of buffer strips in the Red River Valley watershed because Lake Winnipeg is green due to algae blooms caused by phosphates. These scientists presented at the University of Minnesota last summer.
US Rep.Collin Peterson spoke in Pelican Rapids about the Farm Bill in January, 2018. During his question and answer forum he was questioned about the buffer strip land taking by the State of MN. Rep. Peterson replied that it is unconstitutional, shameful, and an overreach by the State of MN. He said when farmers finally challenge the law it will be an easy victory for them. Rep. Peterson went on to say that the State of MN has the funds to purchase the buffer strips but chose to spend it on other land purchases. Bud Nornes was in the audience.
Why is the only elected official representing me, that is speaking in favor of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, a Democrat? The 2015 Republican Majority House, and all Republican Senators, took my land. Collin Peterson is MN farmers' only ally in elected office.
The legal precedents used by some as an excuse that this is constitutional are so absurd that it is not at all conceivable to say that any property in MN can be taken if there is a potential environmental benefit.
I have scientific research papers, legal information, and newspaper articles supporting all the above at my website: https://bufferstrips.wordpress.com/
1977 law is MN Statute 103e.021 2015 law is MN Statute 103f.48 MN Eminent Domain is MN Statute 117 SF2503 is the bill passed by the MN House and Senate to enact 103f.48
Thank you for your time, Mike Van Horn vhorn@hotmail.com
“The elimination of due process is the very gold standard of the socialist state” ~National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre speaking to CPAC, 02/22/18.
Looks like you have a legal battle on your hands.
Agenda 21
Just move to the city. All will be well.
OK, law was passed in 2015. What has happened in the intervening 2 1/2 years? Any lawsuits challenging the law? Why post this today?
Leftists hate private property. They can’t seize it just yet, so they seize control over its use while you keep the tax payments, the insurance, the upkeep and the responsibility.
The laws in many states, with slippery lawyers in charge, have demanded de facto eminent domain actions - takings of private property for public use - without (a) taking the property but in affect taking control of the property, while making permanent and ongoing cost-bearing demands on the property owner, and (b) all without even a thought to just compensation, (c) while the property owner must still pay taxes on land they no longer can use for themselves or control the use of.
Fill in the ditches and farm over them.
The fines begin this year for noncompliance. My efforts until now have been directed at encouraging politicians into action to correct or remove this law. My efforts have been in vain. I am now trying to influence public opinion.
I don’t think the county will allow me to fill in a road ditch.
There is an intermittent stream that runs on the next property. It runs March - December, 6 inches wide and one inch deep. Obama’s waterways of the US (WOUS) executive theft made it into a “navigable waterway.” So glad Trump dumped this land grab down the toilet.
Now the land becomes flooded, and “wetlands”. So the dam state can now “regulate” that! )8-p
I used to live just north of the twin city suburbs, we left when they began their attack on property rights with higher taxes and control of our garden as well as how we park our vehicles in the driveway. It was ridiculous. When Dayton stated that if you don’t like the taxes and government in MN , leave. We packed up and left. We now live in one of the most free states and love it.
I’m pretty sure I saw a snail darter in that stream. Plus, I think I saw a Piping plover nest.
These are the same people that go around with rulers measuring people’s grass hoping to fine them.
Despite a GOP majority in the MN Legislature, they might as well be Democrats. I see nothing but idiocy coming from our Legislature, more taxes, worthless green energy mandates that are raising our electric rates and doing nothing to fix a $40 million fiasco with the vehicle registration system.
Plant some endangered species there, take pictures and let the authorities know you won’t violate federal law to disturb the site.
The Feds CONTROL over 87% of the land in Nevada.
They stupid media keeps saying “The Feds OWN the land”, etc.
They DO NOT Own the land. IF they OWNED the land, they would be paying property taxes just like the rest of us who OWN the land.
These cutsie-pie readers of trash news don’t have a brain to share between all of them.
Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The family cabin is in northern Minnesota - Aitken County. Lots of time spent hunting the flat marshes hopping between islands of trees (rabbit, grouse, and sometimes a woodcock. Never saw a pheasant that far north.) Even with the ditches I think the only thing the few farms there grew were potatoes.
So with the existing berm - I’m guessing that it isn’t planted or anything - it just has the normal brush and weeds and such that will grow there? Although I’m guessing that this new “buffer” extends far beyond the berm into your existing fields. Do you know why the increase of phosphates in the water due to the buffers? I suppose to fertilize the new “wild” growth that has been planted so close to the ditch?
Years ago I was at a relative’s ranch in Oregon. The government was re-doing a creek, adding in bends and stumps and large rocks for increased trout habitat. The relative explained that years ago that was how the creek used to be. But, the government determined that the trout needed to get to their habitat without all of those obstructions, so cleared the creek of boulders and stumps and straightened it out. And they also required the ranchers to fence off the creek where they had cattle so they wouldn’t get into the creek. (BLM land).
Turns out that the cattle also did their part in managing the creek habitat - tromping around in it caused muddy spots in some areas, but in general released the silt from the gravel beds, making the gravel beds better spawning areas for the trout!
Years ago I thought that the government provided incentives to the farmers to leave buffers and/or leave the edges of their crops unharvested as food and shelter for the various animals. I guess they figure if they can make a law forcing one to do that, that is easier. And of course it is favored by the majority of voters in Minnesota (city dwellers).
Each Govt Agency is a separate Legislative, Judicial & Executive nation.
Like Nevada, they will fine you until you sell cheap and leave. The hidden China Communist buyer has another purpose for the land like solar, wind or other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.