Minnesota Court of Appeals Expands Standing for State Agencies To Challenge Local EIS Decisions

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that state agencies with approval authority over a project subject to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) have standing to appeal the decision of the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) to not issue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. In re Cottonwood County’s Decision on Need for EIS, N.W.3d (Minn. Ct. App. 10-13-2025).

Key Takeaways

• For proponents of projects subject to environmental review — including but not limited to certain energy, industrial and residential projects — the court’s decision raises the possibility that a local RGU’s decision on whether to prepare and EIS could be challenged not only by NGOs and citizen groups, but also by impacted state agencies.
• Fredrikson’s environmental team can advise on ways to mitigate this risk, including, e.g., identifying state agencies with permitting or other authority over the project and encouraging early coordination and cooperation between those agencies and the local RGU prior to the RGU’s EIS determination.

Case Summary

The case concerned a proposed project to expand an existing rock quarry. In response to a citizen petition pursuant to MEPA, Cottonwood County (the County), as the RGU for the project, prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to evaluate whether an EIS was necessary for the project. The petition and public comments noted potential impacts to the nearby Jeffers Petroglyphs, which are listed in the state and national register of historic sites.

The EAW noted that indirect impacts to the Jeffers Petroglyphs “will be considered to mitigate any potential adverse indirect effects” and further appended correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a division of the Minnesota Division of Administration (MDA), emphasizing “the need for study on the indirect effects of the project” to the Petroglyphs. MPCA submitted comments urging the county to prepare an EIS or postpone a decision to allow for additional information gathering. Ultimately, the County declined to issue an EIS for the project, finding that it did not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The County subsequently issued an IUP for the project.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the MDA (collectively, the Agencies) appealed the County’s decision to not prepare an EIS and to issue an IUP. The County moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Agencies lacked standing to challenge either decision.

The court reiterated that to establish standing, a party must demonstrate that it is an aggrieved person, and specifically that it has suffered an injury to “a legally protected right.” Citing to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s analysis in In re Sandy Pappas Senate Comm., 488 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Minn. 1992), the court further noted that a party must “articulate with a degree of clarity some legally cognizable interest of his which has sustained injury in fact by the agency action.” The injury must also differ from that suffered by the public generally.

The court first noted that the environmental resources sought to be protected by the Act expressly include historical resources and that the broad purpose of the act is to require agencies to evaluate environmental considerations before a decision is made. To this end, MEPA mandates, among other things, that the EAW identify permits that the project proponent must obtain from a governmental unit or units and further broadly requires the RGU to “complete any required environmental review to inform the RGU’s own decisions and those of other governmental units.” The EAW identified permits that MCPA must issue for the project to proceed, including an air-emissions permit.

In arguing it has standing to challenge the EIS determination, MPCA emphasized “its regulatory role in relation to air quality and argues that it is aggrieved by the county’s EIS decision because the project may have adverse environmental effects.” Similarly, MDA argued that the County had, to that point, failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to consult with the SHPO regarding potential impacts to the Petroglyphs, that the SHPO was the sole entity with authority to enforce the consultation requirement, and that it had suffered a cognizable injury as a result of the County’s failure to consult.

Given the structure and purpose of MEPA and focusing specifically on the Agencies’ permitting and/or statutory authority related to the project, the court denied the County’s motion to dismiss. The court notes that in instances when an RGU declines to prepare an EIS, any state agency with permitting or other approval authority over the project is forced to “either render a permitting or other approval decision based on the limited information in the EAW or divert their own resources to additional investigation to inform their decision.” As a result, the Agencies have a discreet, rather than a generalized, interest in the County’s EIS determination that extends beyond the Agencies’ expertise or interest in the issue, which alone would otherwise be insufficient to confer standing.

The court ultimately held that a state agency with permitting or other approval authority over a project may be aggrieved when an RGU decides not to require an EIS for the project and has standing to appeal the RGU’s decision.

By comparison, the court held that the Agencies lacked standing to challenge the County’s issuance of an IUP for the project. To establish standing to challenge zoning decisions, including the issuance of an IUP, a party must demonstrate specific property or personal interests that will be impacted by the decision. Unlike the County’s EIS determination, the court concluded that the Agencies failed to demonstrate that the County’s IUP decision will impact their ability to exercise their statutory authority over the project or otherwise injure any interests specific to them. The Agencies’ interest and/or expertise in the project and its impacts, without more, was insufficient to confer standing. The court, therefore, dismissed the Agencies’ challenge to the County’s issuance of the IUP.

A local RGU’s decision on whether to prepare and EIS is not necessarily dispositive nor insulated from challenges by impacted state agencies. To the extent possible, therefore, project proponents should identify any state agencies with permitting or other authority over the project and encourage early coordination and cooperation between those agencies and the local RGU prior to the RGU’s EIS determination.

For more information or questions, contact Tom Brett or Jeremy Greenhouse.