Laserfiche WebLink
Memo <br />To: Mayor and City Council <br />From: Mary Kueffner <br />Date: May 15, 1994 <br />i <br />Subject: Petition in Intervention of DNR Permit No 94-6193 <br />At a special meeting with Chuck Dayton on April 27, 1994, the council <br />unanimously directed Mr. Dayton "to intervene by filing a verified pleading under <br />the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act". Mr. Dayton has done that, and I <br />believe you were all supplied with a copy of that petition. <br />The DNR and VBWD have received this notice and are very confused. OLE <br />Pond has been treated with alum, in preparation of a "spring time draw down", <br />which they understood was the desire of the City of Lake Elmo. You have been <br />provided results of the phosphorus testing that has been done to date. Samples <br />were taken again last Friday (prior to the Saturday rainfall) and it will be retesting <br />after OLE Pond has been discharge. <br />Where things have got confused is that the Motion to Intervene will prevent the <br />discharge that we anticipated would occur after the alum treatment. I don't <br />believe that was your intention: I thought the intention was that if OLE Pond was <br />treated, and the water would not be any worse than Olson lake, we would allow <br />the Pond to be discharged, and to -function as designed for one year. And, in the <br />meantime, VBWD would be going through their Plan Amendment and <br />addressing the issues the City has raised, time and time again (alternate routes <br />for discharge, moving the inlet and outlet pipes, permanent treatment of the <br />Pond, etc.) <br />