A culture clash on the St. Croix

Whether they seek to protect the St. Croix River from development or build big houses along its banks, Minnesotans treasure the blue-ribbon river. They just cherish it differently, sometimes in ways that pit them in furious debates.

In February, the Minnesota Supreme Court waded into that controversy with a ruling that removed the state Department of Natural Resources from its tradition of approving or denying building decisions along the river.

The ruling startled environmentalists who looked to the DNR as the ultimate protector of a beloved natural resource. It was greeted enthusiastically by property owners who think the DNR meddles with local governments.

Most everyone agrees that development along the St. Croix, a federally protected wild and scenic river, will continue. They just don't agree on how close it should creep to the river, and that's what sets tempers on edge.

A bill in the Legislature, sponsored by Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, and Rep. Bev Scalze, DFL-Little Canada, seeks to restore DNR authority that the Supreme Court said it didn't have. It would "promote uniformity" in how cities and townships comply with regulations that protect the St. Croix.

As the DNR's Molly Shodeen sees it, if the St. Croix River had no laws to limit development, a wall of condos would line its banks just as private homes now encircle Minnesota's lakes.

"The object isn't to make houses disappear and make people's views go away," said Shodeen, an area hydrologist charged with monitoring the St. Croix. "It's to have a sustainable resource."

Deb Ryun, of the St. Croix River Association, said the DNR hasn't overreached in denying variances that would allow homeowners to build closer to the shore. "They were charged with an unpopular task," she said.

A Lake St. Croix Beach resident, Ron Carlson, echoes her view. "There are those of us who think that local governments simply cannot be trusted to do what the statutes and local rules mandate," Carlson said. "The DNR is needed to check and balance their decisions."

But Claire Eisinger of Afton was delighted with the Supreme Court's decision. "Over the years I have watched the DNR squash people's dreams and waste their money with their often arbitrary rulings," she said.

A look at the DNR's record of denying variances shows that of more than 70 variances that cities and townships granted to property owners in recent years, the DNR denied only nine -- and seven were reversed through subsequent hearings and settlements.

"There aren't a lot of denials," Shodeen said. "The local units of government for the most part make the decisions."

Protecting the St. Croix

The DNR's involvement in the Lower St. Croix started in 1972 when Congress added that portion of the river to the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The state agency was charged with developing regulations that balance development proposals with environmental protection.

Although many of the houses and cabins along the shore were built before the law applied, replacement structures in incorporated areas are subject to a newer 40-foot setback rule. In unincorporated areas, it's 100 feet.

Only the laws that protect the St. Croix prevent its shores from being swallowed by the ever-expanding metro area, said Shodeen, who's worked on the river for more than 20 years. "The regulations have kept it a very nice resource."

Afton's mayor, Pat Snyder, said "it behooves all local units of government along the St. Croix to enforce setbacks because by preserving the recreational qualities and health of the river, we also protect our property values."

But Gary Kriesel, a Washington County commissioner whose district includes Lower St. Croix cities and townships, applauds the Supreme Court ruling. "By no means do I want to attack the DNR because they have an important mission but they get caught up with these special interest groups," he said.

The Hubbard house

Rob Hubbard, who was raised on the St. Croix, doesn't regret spending "a lot of money" challenging the DNR over construction of his house.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state agency had no authority to deny the Lakeland City Council's approval of a setback variance that allowed Hubbard to build his house closer to the river than the DNR thought he should.

The DNR at times has been "nonresponsive" to concerns of property owners, Hubbard said, and "the DNR people up and down the river have a reputation for not being open and honest with people."

Some people assailed the newer Hubbard house as an example of private wealth infringing on public resources, but to Shodeen, it was a matter of compliance. "There was no physical limitation for why he couldn't move the house back and still meet the setback requirements," she said.

Hubbard said local governments can manage DNR's regulations along the river just fine without state oversight and "if cities aren't responsible they'll be in big trouble," he said.

The DNR doesn't support the legislative bill to restore its authority to support or deny local variances, Shodeen said. Instead, the DNR now prefers to take contested cases -- situations where the agency thinks a city or township hasn't followed laws already in place -- to district court.

Kevin Giles • 612-673-4432