The Lawsuit
On December 3, 2018, Smart Growth Minneapolis, the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds sued the City of Minneapolis under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA).
MERA establishes the right of every Minnesotan to the protection, preservation and enhancement of air, water, land and other natural resources located within the state. What’s more, it gives every Minnesota citizen the right to sue to protect these rights.
MERA requires
- The plaintiff to provide enough scientific evidence to show that environmental harm will likely be caused by the comprehensive plan.
- The defendant to prove that their plan will not harm the environment.
In arguing our case, we presented the judge with an engineering analysis showing the harm that would be done by the plan, as the law requires. But the City did not even try to deny that the 2040 Plan would have adverse impacts on the environment or that it had neglected to identify those impacts. Instead, it argued that a different law (MEPA) exempts it from doing a study to evaluate the effects on the environment of its massive land-use deregulation plan.
The City’s continued legal maneuvering to shield itself from having to address the substance of our lawsuit ended on February 10, 2021 when we prevailed in the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that our case can go forward because we had adequately argued a link between the 2040 Plan and potential environmental effects.
Why is it important to win?
At its heart, this case is about whether our state’s first and most important environmental law, MERA, will serve the purpose for which it was intended, or whether the City of Minneapolis will succeed in eviscerating it. The latter would not only result in the degradation of our beautiful city but in weakened environmental protections for the entire State of Minnesota for years to come.
It is unfortunate that the City did not do the right thing by choosing to study the cumulative environmental effects of its 2040 Plan before adopting it. Residents have been given a false binary choice by the city of Minneapolis. It should be possible to have responsible development that provides better housing opportunities for all while also protecting the environment and addressing issues of environmental justice.
“The legislature finds and declares that each person is entitled by right to the protection, preservation, and enhancement of air, water, land, and other natural resources located within the state and that each person has the responsibility to contribute to the protection, reservation and enhancement thereof. The legislature further declares its policy to create and maintain within the state conditions under which human beings and nature can exist in productive harmony in order that present and future generations may enjoy clean air and water, productive land, and all other natural resources with which this state has been endowed. Accordingly, it is within the public interest to provide an adequate civil remedy to protect air, water, land and other natural resources located with the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”
Lawsuit Questions Answered
Q: Where are we now?
A: We have won again in Hennepin County District Court! On September 5, 2023, Judge Joseph Klein ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the City of Minneapolis to conduct an environmental review to identify the “likely material adverse environmental impacts” of its 2040 plan. The court has implemented a temporary injunction of the plan (reverting it back to the 2030 Plan), including zoning and land-use changes, until the City complies with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA).
Q: Why is this important?
A: Environmental review of the 2040 Plan by an objective third party will provide the essential data needed to vet the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, mitigate likely harm and leverage benefits. This landmark case affirms the importance our state’s most important environmental law, the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA). This victory affirms citizens’ rights to hold their government accountable, under MERA, for the potential harmful effects of city plans on the environment and on the health and well-being of its residents.
In its friend of the court brief in support of maintaining the broad purpose of MERA, filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy warns that the city’s position, if adopted in revised state law, would run “contrary to the broad, remedial purpose of the statute” and “would be detrimental to the future application and enforcement of MERA.” We share that concern. Weakening our state’s first environmental law hurts everyone in Minnesota — not just the people of Minneapolis and its residents.
Q: What is MERA and what is the basis for the lawsuit?
A: The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) was passed by the legislature in 1971 to provide Minnesotans with “an adequate civil remedy to protect air, water, land and other natural resources located within the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”
Seeking to do exactly what this law intends, we presented uncontroverted evidence that Minneapolis’ 2040 Plan is likely to cause increased pollution of already impaired city lakes, increased soil erosion, increased flooding, diminished air quality, and reduced wildlife habitat.
Q: Has the City presented any evidence refuting the evidence we presented?
A: Unbelievably, no. The City’s choice to forgo any factual evidence to support their case was, according to judge Klein, an “unfortunate strategy [that] has left the city bereft of any fact-based rebuttal or affirmative defense, the type of which is called for under MERA.” It appears that the City has no case, no legal basis for clinging to the idea that no environmental scrutiny of the 2040 is needed to mitigate harm to the environment.