|
Investment Rarities v. Bottineau Co. Water Resource Dist., 396 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1986) (913 words) |
 | Investment Rarities asserted that it purchased the property for the sole purpose of wildlife preservation, and, to that end, executed a perpetual wetland easement to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prohibiting any wetland drainage of the property. |
| Therefore, Investment Rarities contended it could not legally derive any benefit from the proposed drainage project and should not be assessed any portion of the cost of the project. |
| Investment Rarities argues that courts have inherent jurisdiction to review and correct the State Engineer's decision and asks that we reverse the dismissal and either remand to the district court for a decision on the merits or that we rule on the merits on the basis of the record before us. |
Feeds |
Contact