(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part. The Court is correct in denying the “taking” claim at this time because appellant has not yet shown any loss. The proper remedy lies in a proceeding for inverse condemnation.
I feel compelled, however, to address my concern that this Court has set a dangerous precedent by approving the agency’s action to permit a municipality to convert from an adequate surface water supply to an underground water supply. The public, as well as the citizens of Crookston, should be made aware of the dangers inherent in undertaking this shift to a ground water source.
At the outset, I think it is important to note that this case involves some procedural peculiarities. The majority opinion cites findings by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources supporting his conclusions that grant the city a permit to drill the underground wells and to construct the 12 miles of pipeline that will be required. However, the majority does not even mention the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the state’s own hearing examiner. The hearing examiner heard the evidence of all of the witnesses involved in these applications. For the sake of brevity, I do not intend to set out his findings, but his conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
CONCLUSIONS
1. That insofar as any of the foregoing Findings of Fact are more properly denominated Conclusions, they are hereby adopted as such.
2. That the Department of Natural Resources duly acquired and now has jurisdiction over the within proceeding. It has complied with all relevant procedural requirements of statute and rule.
3. That both of the proposed uses will serve a beneficial public purpose.
4. That a valid carefully controlled pumping test is needed in the upper aquifer before the impact of the City’s proposed use can be assessed.
5. That a full test of the lower aquifer is needed before the impact of the City’s proposed use can be assessed.
6. That no permit should be issued until the full impact of the proposed use is assessed, including how many additional wells and well fields must be constructed and when.
7. That the City ignored fundamental recommendations of its expert witness in seeking to go ahead with this project without completing the necessary testing.
8. That the available evidence suggests that the City expert has overestimated the capacity of the upper aquifer.
9. That any permits for high capacity pumping that are issued in this area should have conditions to protect potentially adversely affected adjacent farm and residential wells.
10. That any permit issued for high capacity wells should contain conditions to ensure the statutory priority rights of all users.
*77811. That all permits issued for high capacity wells should contain notice of all readily ascertainable specific potential future limitations or other modifications likely as a result of future applications for competing uses.
12. That surface waters from the Red Lake River are adequate for the present and foreseeable future needs of municipal water supply for the City of Crookston.
13. That the overall long-term allocation of combined total ground and surface resources must be carefully considered in any major shift of use from one source to another, including all planned and potential beneficial uses of these resources.
14. That there is not an adequate supply of groundwater resources at the location herein for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses combined.
15. That granting the applications proposed for municipal and industrial purposes will make it impossible to assure an adequate supply for agricultural purposes in this area.
16. That requiring the City to continue to utilize surface water will assure that there is an adequate supply for all three purposes.
17. That granting the proposed City permit will affect a diversion of surface water resources of the state to a place outside of the state and to Canada for at least 20 years without a determination by the Commissioner that the water remaining in this part of the state will be adequate to meet the state’s water resources needs over that 20-year period.
18. That granting the proposed City permit will involve a diversion of groundwa-ters of the state to a place outside of the state and to Canada for at least 20 years, without a determination of the Commissioner that the water remaining in this part of the state will be adequate to meet the state’s water resources needs during that 20-year period.
19. That there is inadequate data available on groundwater resources in this part of the state to make a determination as to the adequacy of combined ground and surface water resources for the needs of the state over the next 20 years.
20. That granting the proposed City permit would not encourage appropriation and use of surface water from streams during periods of flood flows and high water levels.
21. That granting the proposed City permit would cause it to establish a groundwater system that would add substantial amounts of groundwater to streams during periods of flood flows and high water levels.
22. Granting the proposed permit would effectively preclude future appropriation and use of surface water from the Red Lake River during periods of flood flows and high water levels, by the largest existing appropriator and user in the watershed.
23. That if a determination could be made as to the adequacy of available remaining state water resources, granting of the proposed permits would not be an action discouraging the diversion of water from the state for use in other states and Canada.
24. That continuing to use a surface water source, supplemented with groundwater is an alternative to granting the proposed permits that has not been studied, developed and described.
25. That a more diverse groundwater system utilizing more wells in different aquifers and lower capacity pumping is an alternative which has not been studied, developed and described.
26. That utilizing a separate industrial water supply system is an alternative that has not been studied, developed and described.
27. That issuance of the permit will cause impairment and destruction of groundwater and land resources located within the state.
28. That continued use of surface water supplies from the Red Lake River for municipal purposes by the City is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of public health, safety and welfare and the state’s para*779mount concern for the protection of its water and land resources from impairment and destruction. Economic considerations are the sole valid reason that has been advanced for not utilizing this alternative.
29. That from the limited information available, except for economic considerations, it appears that upgrading or replacing the existing surface water treatment plant and supplementing it with groundwater would be a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare and the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its water and land resources from impairment or destruction.
30. That from the information that is available, except for economic considerations, it appears that a more diverse system utilizing additional wells in other aquifers and lower capacity pumping would be a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with reasonable requirements of public health, safety and welfare and the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its water and land resources from impairment or destruction.
31. That the proposal of Department Staff in their proposed findings for a one and one-half mile protective zone around the City well field, prohibiting irrigation wells, would directly violate the statute giving irrigation uses equal priority to the agricultural-industrial use, to which roughly 30 percent of the municipal water is put.
32. That neither the need for nor the reasonableness of the granting of permits to the City has been documented by an affirmative presentation of facts.
33. That these Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations are made explicitly without weighing other considerations peculiar to DNR knowledge and expertise. For this reason, the statute leaves action or inaction with regard to the Recommendations to the Department. Priorities in the application of limited DNR resources to the protection of the state’s natural resources is properly evaluated and understood only by the Department. This is why the Legislature left such decisions to the Department.
RECOMMENDATIONS
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: That on the basis of the full record herein, the Department reverse its earlier recommendation to the City to switch to a groundwater system. Such a reversal (or even official neutrality), together with the delay involved in further testing and likely litigation, would probably cause the City to return to its initial plans to construct a new surface water treatment plant.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: That the Department require a carefully controlled valid pumping test in the upper portion of the aquifer and thorough testing of the lower portion of the aquifer with provisions to prevent the discharges from the pump from recharging the aquifer before granting any permits. Perhaps with the agreement of the City, the cost of this testing could be spread more equitably by requiring that the Cattle Company bear the costs of tests in either the upper or lower portion of the aquifer as a condition precedent to the granting of one of its irrigation permits. If the parties are still in disagreement after the investigation is complete, a further hearing should be conducted to consider the test data and the information that has been developed on the proposed alternatives.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: That if the preceding Recommendations are not followed, any permit issued to the City should explicitly indicate that in the event of verified interference with adjacent high capacity irrigation wells, the allowable appropriation at this site will be cut back rateably [sic] to assure that irrigation uses retain their equal priority with agricultural-industrial uses. Any permits issued for irrigation should contain a similar condition to protect the statutory priority accorded the City’s domestic users.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: That the Department process the two Cattle Company applications. Final action on their permits should also be delayed until after completion of the hereinabove recommended further testing.
*780IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: That all applications herein be denied until such time as the applicants agree to some informal, inexpensive procedure to ensure that domestic users are adequately compensated for the expenses of installing, deepening or otherwise improving wells to retain their statutory priority.
Dated: July 19, 1978.
/s/ Howard L. Kaibel
Howard L. Kaibel, Jr.
Hearing Examiner
In spite of these specific recommendations that were solidly grounded on the evidence, the commissioner, presumably relying on his own inner office experts, refused to adopt those recommendations and instead issued his own findings and conclusions that were contrary to those of the hearing examiner. These proceedings suggest that too much emphasis was put on the opinions of the agency’s experts. The opinions of those with special knowledge must always be considered but not to the exclusion of other relevant and important evidence. Similarly, the application of logic, common sense and public policy considerations cannot be wholly abandoned in favor of technological expertise. An analysis of some of the contentions made by the city in this case using those factors suggests to me the following:
There are a number of justifications for the city’s conversion to a ground water supply that have been asserted in this case. These justifications include the claim that the present surface water supply, the Red Lake River, is unreliable because it is controlled by the Red Lake Indians. There is no adequate support in the record for the bold assertion that the Red Lake Indians might cut the flow of water in the river. It is doubtful whether a tribal council would take such action even if it had the authority to do so, and if the Indian authorities did have such authority, can one seriously doubt the quick response on the part of both the state and the Congress of the United States to rectify such an action?
It is also alleged that the surface runoff and farm fertilizer does and will continue to pollute the Red Lake River. If it can be assumed that such pollution is occurring, is the appropriate response action which merely avoids the problem by looking to another source of water? I think not. The better answer is to control pollution at its source. Many of the nation’s rivers, streams and waterways are being revitalized as a result of local community concern about pollution. Salmon are back in many of our nation’s river systems along the oceans; trout are back in the Hudson; walleyes are back in the St. Louis River in our own state; and Lakes Erie and Ontario are once again being opened to swimming. It would appear to me to be more productive to halt the pollution of Red Lake River than to ignore the problem by converting to a ground water supply. What course is left to the city in the event that the ground water source becomes polluted? There will come a time when the alternative sources of water have been exhausted and pollution will have to be confronted. To delay that confrontation is not in the public interest.
The final justification for conversion to ground water is economics. The contention that the tapping of an underground water source is less expensive than constructing new treatment facilities and controlling pollution ignores some very real potential difficulties. If the underground water source becomes polluted, purification facilities will have to be built. If the quantity from the underground source is insufficient, the city must again look to the river for water and a treatment plant would be necessary at a cost substantially greater than the initial investment in the ground water supply system. If a dual supply system is used, the expense would be significantly greater than the cost of upgrading the supply system from the river alone.
Additionally, the ground water source chosen as an alternative supply by the city is not without problems. A recent article in a leading monthly magazine points out that in some areas of the nation, particularly in California where heavy underground water use has been the vogue for the past 30 years, the land surface itself is beginning to *781cave in and sink, in some cases up to 20 and 30 feet, and wells have been made ever and ever deeper to reach water.1 Another article in a weekly news magazine points out that once underground water is polluted by fertilizer or chemicals, it is much more difficult to purify than surface water.2
The questions raised by the above discussion have not been adequately dealt with by the city, the DNR or this Court. Until these questions can be properly answered, prudence dictates delay and caution in proceeding to use sources of underground water when adequate supplies of surface water are available.
This Court should not reverse an administrative agency for the sole reason it believes an agency decision is unwise. It is my opinion, however, that not only is the decision by the DNR in this case unwise, but that it also sets very bad precedent. Moreover, I submit the agency’s decision does not adequately protect the rights of private property owners-rights still very basic to our system of government-nor does the decision protect the citizens of the City of Crookston or the citizens of the State of Minnesota from a possible future environmental and economic catastrophe.
I would find that the decision of the agency does not have adequate support in the record. Accordingly, I would reverse the granting of the permit to the City of Crookston and remand the case to the DNR with instructions to order additional public hearings following the submission of those additional tests and water data recommended by the original hearing examiner.
PETERSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.. See Canby, Our Most Precious Resource: Water, 158 Nat’l Geographic 144, 170 (1980).
. See The Poisoning of America, Time, Sept. 22, 1980, at 58, 66.