A third district judge granted the Lake Chapeau Habitat Committee a temporary restraining order against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tuesday, to remain in effect until further hearings can be held on the issue.

Friday, January 05, 2001

A third district judge granted the Lake Chapeau Habitat Committee a temporary restraining order against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tuesday, to remain in effect until further hearings can be held on the issue.

&uot;At this point it is in no way clear as to which party will likely prevail, but it certainly cannot be said that there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will not prevail,&uot; Judge Broberg wrote in a memorandum to the court.

The restraining order prevents the DNR, or anyone acting on its behalf, from removing the contested dam at the outlet of Lake Chapeau.

One reason the judge gave for granting the restraining order is that it stops the dispute between the Habitat Committee and the DNR, at least temporarily.

&uot;In other words, if the court stays out of the fray at this juncture, allowing the dam to be removed, the cycle may well repeat itself yet again – all without any judicial determination of whether any law was violated or whether any contract was broken,&uot; he wrote.

Leaving the dam in place while the issue is debated results in the least harm to either party, Broberg wrote.

&uot;The court is loath to make a ruling which, though not officially dispositive of the ultimate factual and legal questions in the case, could still, in reality, chop the legal legs out from under one party to the detriment of the other,&uot; he wrote.

&uot;Removal of the dam, however, is removal of the dam, and, based on the limited record thus far, would appear to be much more harmful to Plaintiff’s position than leaving it in place would be to Defendant’s,&uot; he wrote.

If it turns out that the landowners turn out to have a valid agreement with the DNR that makes the dam legal, then the court can intervene. But if it turns out to be a matter of the habitat committee simply disagreeing with the legal action of the DNR, the issue would be a matter to bring up with the legislature, he wrote.

At any rate, there is time to debate the issue while we wait for the spring thaw.

&uot;The court, of its own volition, takes judicial notice of Minnesota’s current weather,&uot; Broberg wrote. &uot;Any events dealing with the water level of the lake – as is the water level itself – is, in all likelihood, frozen in place until spring.&uot;