On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Todd County Board of Commissioners (Board) that denied the request of Dairy Ridge LLC for a conditional use permit (CUP) for its 75-acre dairy farm. Matter of Dairy Ridge LLC, No. A24-0640, WL 958513 (Minn,. Ct. App. March 31, 2025). Dairy Ridge sought the CUP to expand its feedlot by 700 dairy cows and make certain structural improvements to the farm. Central to the Board’s denial of the CUP were concerns regarding the sustainability of groundwater appropriated by Dairy Ridge for its farming operation. The Todd County Zoning Ordinance required that for CUP requests, the Board must find, among other things, that the conditional use will not cause detrimental environmental effects, including detrimental impacts on water supply. Todd County Planning and Zoning Ordinance § 5.05(B)(v) (2017).
According to the Court of Appeals’ decision, Dairy Ridge appropriated water from the B1 Aquifer via three wells. For one of these wells, Dairy Ridge had failed to submit a permit application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Dairy Ridge subsequently submitted an application, but at the time of the Board’s decision, the permit for the third well had not been granted. A hydrologist from the DNR submitted a letter to the Board expressing concern regarding groundwater sustainability in light of Dairy Ridge's CUP application. The B1 aquifer was stressed, the hydrologist explained, with significant decline over the past two decades; further technical analysis would be necessary before the permit application could be approved. In addition, the hydrologist noted that Dairy Ridge’s use of the third, unpermitted well had caused five interferences with wells on neighboring properties, an issue that was also brought up by citizens at public meetings on the CUP.
Dairy Ridge indicated it was seeking DNR approval to appropriate from a different aquifer – the H1 aquifer – to alleviate pressure on the B1 aquifer, but it had not yet obtained a permit to do so. Dairy Ridge also suggested the Board could grant the CUP conditioned upon Dairy Ridge obtaining the necessary appropriation permits from DNR. The Board declined to do so and denied the CUP request. Among the Board’s bases for doing so were (a) a lack of information from DNR to support an informed decision about groundwater quantity protection and (b) an insufficient availability of groundwater to supply the proposed expansion.
On appeal, Dairy Ridge first argued that the county zoning ordinance did not authorize the Board to deny a CUP request on the basis that a state agency did not demonstrate one of the CUP factors had been met. The court disagreed. The county ordinance, it noted, put the burden of demonstrating the CUP factors on the permit applicant, and nothing in the ordinance prevented the Board from considering evidence, or a lack thereof, from state agencies. Rather, the Board, like a reviewing court, looks to the record as a whole, including, here, the DNR hydrologist’s concerns. The court emphasized that at the time of the Boards denial, the DNR had yet to grant Dairy Ridge’s applications for the third well on the B1 well and the proposed well on the H1 aquifer.
Regarding the Board’s second reason for denying the CUP request – insufficient availability of groundwater to supply the proposed expansion – Dairy Ridge argued this directly contradicted the Board’s first reason (that there was insufficient evidence on groundwater impacts) and was unsupported by record evidence. The court again disagreed, explaining that the Board found there was insufficient information regarding groundwater protections, not groundwater generally. Plus, the court cited “ample evidence in the record suggesting that the B1 aquifer has become stressed.”
Dairy Ridge also argued that the Board could issue the CUP conditioned upon Dairy Ridge obtaining the necessary information on groundwater sustainability. The court rejected any suggestion that the Board was required to take this approach. The county ordinance requires the Board to make findings on impacts to surrounding properties, detrimental environmental effects and potential adverse effects on public health and safety. Here, the court concluded the lack of information on groundwater directly involved the health, safety, and general welfare of the local community. The court thus affirmed the Board’s denial of Dairy Ridge’s request for a CUP.
For more information, contact Jeremy Greenhouse.
Featured Professionals
Professionals
612.492.7175
