Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#01 - Water Topics STAFF REPORT DATE: 4-8-25 Workshop TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Clark Schroeder Special Projects Manager AGENDA ITEM: Water topics in Lake Elmo CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☐ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☒ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Managed Growth ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: Lake Elmo has a number of different concerns related to water currently. This workshop is a updated from Special Projects Manager Clark Schroeder. Clark Schroeder represents the city on the 3M priority one workgroup and the White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup. . ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Mr. Schroeder will cover the following topics at the workshop: 1. White Bear Lake Workgroup update 2. DNR water permit and legal update 3. 3M settlement group update and studies 4. Washington County Landfill review PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Presentation from staff and receiving of feedback from Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Unqualified at this time. OPTIONS: Provide feedback for further study. RECOMMENDATION: No action requested. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint and associated documents. Lake Elmo Water April 8 th , 2025 Clark Schroeder, Special Projects Manager cschroeder@lakeelmo.gov 01 02 03 04 05 Topics DNR/WBL Legal Update White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup 3M Settlement Priority 1 Workgroup Long Term Funding Washington County Landfill DNR / White Bear Lake Legal Update/Lawsuits 01 Timeline of court cases that have been going on since 2012 HERE.02 In 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the DNR claiming that excess groundwater permits in the east metro led to unacceptably low lake levels. 03 Short summary HERE. 04 This led to the White Bear Lake Comprehensive workgroup White Bear Lake Lawsuit Timeline . White Bear Lake Lawsuit Next Steps 01 On April 16th at 11:15, there will be an oral argument at the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding a water appropriation permit appeal. We are appealing the Administrative law judge’s decision that requires us to implement and enforce a plan to phase down to 75/90 (condition No. 3). 02 December 16-19, 2025, the trial addresses the City’s objection to the DNR’s September 10, 2024, amendment to our water permit. White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup A workgroup has been established to create a comprehensive plan that ensures communities in the White Bear Lake area have access to sufficient safe drinking water. This plan aims to support municipal growth while also ensuring the sustainability of surface water and groundwater resources to meet the community's needs. 01 15 different studies being done or considered by the groupHERE is a lis ting of the s tudie s . This is the current Lake level. HERE Protective level of 922 02 Legislative allocation of $2 million; will mos t like ly ne e d more to finis h all studies. 03 White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup •The court ordered the DNR to amend existing groundwater permits within a five-mile radius of White Bear Lake with the following stipulations: •Require a residential irrigation ban when the water level of White Bear Lake drops below 923.5 feet. The ban remains in effect until the water level reaches 924 feet. •Require all permittees to develop a per capita water use plan to reduce residential per capita water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day. •Require public water suppliers to develop a contingency plan to shift their source of water from groundwater to surface water. •Require all permittees to report to the DNR annually on collaborative efforts with other north and east metro communities to develop per capita water use plans. White Bear Lake Studies One study is examining potential surface water connections for various cities.01 The proximity of a city to the lake influences lake levels.02 In this proposal, we will study surface water connections to cities closer to White Bear Lake than La ke Elm o . Presentation. Surface water will not be recommended for Lake Elmo due to the limited effect it would have on WBL in my opinion. 03 A ke y c onc e rn is how to fund this initiative . If c itie s in the east metro area benefit from switching to surface water, an east metro taxing district could be established, or state funding could cover costs. Further discussion on this will continue over the next two years. 04 White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup One Option for Surface Water White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Members Bryan Bear, City of Hugo Clark Schroeder, City of Lake Elmo Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes Bob Goebel, City of Mahtomedi Craig Schlichting, City of New Brighton Kevin Kress, City of North Oaks Morgan Dawley, City of North St. Paul Chris Volkers, City of Oakdale Tom Wesolowski, City of Shoreview Shawn Sanders, City of Stillwater Racquel Vaske, Saint Paul Regional Water Services Jim Hauth, City of Vadnais Heights Paul Kauppi, City of White Bear Lake Mary Van Milligen, City of Woodbury Pat Christopherson, White Bear Township David Weum, Department of Health Jason Moeckel, Department of Natural Resources vacant, Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC) Liz Kaufenberg, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3M Priority One Workgroup All the past meetings and notes are HERE 01 This fund is managed by a Trustee who reviews and approves projects according to their charter. This document is from 2020, so some members’ names have changed. 02 Annual report for 2024 HERE 03 04 Approved projects are more expensive than the conceptual estimate, and hence they are anticipating the fund will run out by 2027. 3M Priority One Workgroup This group is composed of one representative each from the MPCA, DNR, 3M, Washington County, and one representative from each of the following communities: Afton, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, Maplewood, Newport, Oakdale, St. Paul Park, Woodbury, the townships of Denmark, Grey Cloud Island, and West Lakeland, and the Prairie Island Indian Community. One representative from the Citizen–Business Group will also be a liaison to this group. Each community, MPCA, DNR, and 3M can designate one alternate when their representative is unable to participate in a meeting. MAP. 3M Priority One Workgroup Lake Elmo Projects Well 2 PFAS Treatment Project. Contract #1: Well 2 PFAS Removal Equipment. We have been informed that a delay in equipment delivery is anticipated and are working with the Contractor to mitigate impacts. Contract #2: Well 2 Generator Equipment. The generator delivery date has been moved up to May 13, 2025 (previously June 4). Contract #3: Well 2 Water Treatment Plant General Construction Contract. Demolition work is substantially completed at Wellhouse No. 2 and the contractor is starting masonry, electrical and concrete work. South Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Wells. A preliminary site plan has been developed with land acquisition requirements identified, it will require and acquisition of approximately 8-acres. North Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for Well 4 and Well 5. A draft preliminary design proposal was received by SEH and is currently under review by the City Engineering team. Once the work plan and fee is finalized, staff will prepare a Planning Grant through the MPCA to fund the study. The study purpose is to prepare the preliminary design and Site analysis for the North Water Treatment Plant for Well 4 and Well 5. Staff is currently working on preparing a MPCA grant. 3M Priority One Workgroup 01 02 3M is requesting mediation to resolve disputes with the MPCA regarding “what is reasonable and necessary,” under the 2007 decree. What’s next after the 3M settlement fund runs of money? In 2007, the MPCA and 3M negotiated a Consent Order to bring investigation and cleanup of the three disposal sites under the formal Superfund process. These sites are in Oakdale, Woodbury, 03 ©Angelina Katsanis/Star Tribune/TNS and Cottage Grove. The Washington County Landfill (WCL) in Lake Elmo was NOT included. 2007 Decree, Listing from AG office of exhibits from the 2018 settlement. HERE PFAS Plume 03 Lake Elmo’s concern for both City water supplies and private wells Our plume is also influenced by project 1007 which is a project which stabilized the lake levels in the tri-lakes area from 1987 but also ended up creating a path for PFAS transmission further downstream. Project MPCA is analyzing the plume to see what percentage of mixed molecules come from which landfill. 04 05 One of the long-term goals is to eliminate the PFAS in the aquifers. The only way to do that is to pump out the water and reinject it back in, or divert some of it to drinking water Project 1007- Highway for PFAS Transmission . Project 1007- Highway for PFAS Transmission . Project 1007 Multi-Benefit Well Arrays Proposal 1 . Long Term Funding Long Term Funding . Due to the comingled plume, The 2007 Consent Decree might only cover a portion of ongoing expenses related to the molecules from Oakdale and Washington County Landfill. At worst, 3M might not pay anything, and the MPCA's closed landfill program would provide some coverage. In discussions with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), efforts are underway to develop a funding framework for both private and public water treatment in Lake Elmo; however, the details are still being finalized. The agency is also exploring contributions from the two landfills in the area. Lake Elmo staff will continue to work closely with the MPCA, the 3M trustees, and 3M. Long Term Funding . In 2019, the city approved an agreement that settled a multi-year lawsuit against 3M for contamination in our drinking water. This agreement released 3M from any liability from “PFAS” fluorinated organic substance. Lawsuit agreement is HERE. Because of this agreement, Lake Elmo cannot sue 3M for costs related to PFAS cleanup or treatment. vs. Washington County Landfill . 01 Lake Elmo’s concern for both City water supplies and private wells Due to the plume being made up of a different molecular mix from the Oakdale Landfill and another mix from the Washington County Landfill, we have a comingled plume. Private wells tests HERE shows different molecule if you look at each well. 02 PFOS is the primary PFAS constituent in the Oakdale site, whereas the Washington County Landfill has PFBA/PFOA signature. The main point, is both landfills have a mix of different PFAS which when we test downstream in the aquifer it is hard to tell what came from where. Washington County Landfill: Why do we own it? . The City took ownership of the landfill in 1995. The City is looking into the history of why, and if there were any disclosures at that time. Both Washington County and Ramsey County utilized the landfill from 1969 until 1975. Landfill page HERE. Staff are reviewing old file boxes for agenda items from the mid-90s and has requested public information from Washington County. In addition, the MPCA will review their files as well. QUESTIONS? Work Order Proposal Requests White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan I. Converting water supplies that are groundwater dependent to total or partial supplies from surface water (3/3) Study No. 1 - Redirect stormwater to augment White Bear Lake Study No. 2 1. Convey treated surface water from St. Paul Regional Water Services to north and east communities 2. Construct a regional surface water treatment plant near the chain of lakes in the north metro and convey treated surface water to north and east communities 3. Added - Convey treated surface water from St. Paul Regional Water Services to north and east communities and construct a regional surface water treatment plant near the chain of lakes in the north metro and convey treated surface water to north and east communities II. Reuse water Study No. 3 - Reuse of treated wastewater from local Met Council interceptors for industrial and agricultural users Study No. 4 - Stormwater reuse for irrigation Study No. 5 - Reuse water discharged from contaminated wells – MPCA Project 1007 III. Projects designed to increase groundwater recharge Study No. 6 - Treat wastewater from local Met Council interceptors and inject the treated wastewater into the aquifer to raise groundwater elevations Study No. 7A – Water quality study as it relates to lake augmentation study (Study No. 7B) Study No. 7B - Lake augmentation by pumping treated surface water from the chain of lakes into White Bear Lake Study No. 8 - Stormwater collection and infiltration to raise groundwater elevations Study No. 9A – Raise outlet elevation of White Bear Lake – initial evaluation of potential flood impacts Study No. 9B – Raise outlet elevation of White Bear Lake – potential water storage and downstream hydraulic capacity. This study would be completed only if favorable results are achieved with Study No. 9A IV. Other methods for reducing groundwater use Study No. 10 - Lawn water restrictions (day of week and time) Study No. 11 - Implement/require/encourage non- or less-potable water reuse for irrigation and process water (Talk to Jim Hauth at Vadnais Heights) Study No. 12 - Tiered increasing block water utility rates Study No. 13 - Potential water savings from alternative low input turf grasses V. Other studies (dependent on available funding) Study No. 14A – Future community impacts from PFAS groundwater contamination with groundwater modeling Study No. 14B – Estimated capital and long-term O&M costs of PFAS water treatment for impacted communities Study No. 15 – Estimated capital and long-term O&M costs to construct two additional wells in Shoreview and expand the city’s existing water treatment plant capacity to serve drinking water for North Oaks’ projected 2050 and ultimate development water demands if groundwater modeling determines that Shoreview can remain on groundwater through ultimate development NMLG Model Results for White Bear Lake, Ultimate Demand Scenarios Glen Champion |Hydrologist Overview •Review ultimate demand scenarios •75 gpcd residential and 90 gpcd total demand goals •Groups of water systems off groundwater (surface-water supply) •Lake augmentation (example) •Injection of treated wastewater into bedrock aquifer Summary of Ultimate-Demand Scenarios Scenario Descripton Ultimate (Hugo 1)Long-term groundwater use at projected Ultimate demands (2030/2040 MUSA in Hugo) Ultimate (Hugo 2)Long-term groundwater use at projected Ultimate demands (expanded MUSA in Hugo) All Groundwater Water Demands and Goals Court Order applied to groundwater users in 5-mile buffer around WBL “. . . all existing permits include an enforceable plan to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day.” How would meeting the 75 and/or 90 goals for communities remaining on groundwater affect scenario results? Per Capita Demands 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 ga l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r d a y 2014-23 Average Residential All Other Total Goal Residential Goal Per Capita Demand Goals -Residential 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 North Oaks Woodbury ga l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r d a y Residential Residential Residential Goal Per Capita Demand Goals 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Lake Elmo Stillwater Vadnais Heights White Bear Township (North) Woodbury (Res. To 75) ga l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r d a y Total Over 90 Residential Non-Residential Goal 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Lake Elmo Stillwater Vadnais Heights White Bear Township (North) Woodbury (Res. To 75) ga l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r d a y Non-Residential Non-Residential Meets Goal Alternative Future Demand Considerations •Systems over 75 gpcd residential75 gpcd •Systems over 90 gpcd ? •Possibilities for further reductions in future per capita demands? •Reduce non-residential, per capita demands by X%? •Non-residential only 20% to 45% per capita reductions •Per capita residential reductions (median = 71)? •Uncertainties in Ultimate and actual populations served Alternative Future Demand Scenario •Initially tested adjusting residential per capita to 75 gallons •North Oaks and Woodbury •Other possibilities? Replace Groundwater Supplies –Approach •Tested multiple replacement scenarios in model •2014 Met Council study •Hugo 1 and Hugo 2 development options •Same in groundwater model if extra development area supplied with surface water Replace Groundwater Supplies –Previous Study (2014) Replace Groundwater Supplies –Present Analysis White Bear Township (South) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USANew WTP Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 6 (SW 2) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township (South) New WTP Model Results– Replace 6 Permits (SW 2) •Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits, 4 communities Model Results– Replace 6 Permits (SW 2a) •Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits, 4 communities •North Oaks and Woodbury  75 gpcd residential •Other demand reduction options? Replace Groundwater Supplies - Summary Scenario Brief Description Communities / Permits SW 2a (Hugo 1)Replace 6 permits with reduced demands Mahtomedi, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 3 (Hugo 1)Replace 7 permits Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 3-2 (Hugo 2)Replace 7 permits with reduced demands Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 4 (Hugo 1), SW 4-2 (Hugo 2) Replace 9 permits Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Saputo Cheese USA, Shoreview and North Oaks( joint system), Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 5 (Hugo 1)Replace 7 permits Mahtomedi, North Oaks, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 6a (Hugo 1)Replace 6 permits with reduced demands Mahtomedi, North Oaks, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 2c (Hugo 1)Replace 6 permits and injection of 1 mgd treated wastewater Mahtomedi, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 7 (Hugo 1)Replace 4 permits and injection of 2 mgd treated wastewater Saputo Cheese USA, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) Lake Augmentation •Two previous conceptual cost studies (Met Council, 2014 and DNR and Met Council 2016) •Water -quality study starts soon •Initial model test •Hugo 2, all communities remain on groundwater supplies •Augmentation during open-water season •Trigger - 923 ft if not rising •Up to 780 MGY (< ½ previously studied) •Max rate ~ 4 mgd Augmentation Example •Hugo 2 •Augmentation during open-water season 2006- 07, part of 2008, 2009- 10, part of 2011, and part of 2012 Replacement vs. Augmentation Comparison •Hugo 2 •Augmentation vs. SW 3-2 (Replace 7 permits, 5 communities) Injection of Treated Wastewater •Ultimate (Hugo 1) •Injection well(s) adjacent to WBL, 1 mgd or 2 mgd Injection of Treated Wastewater and Replace Groundwater Supplies •Ultimate (Hugo 1) •Injection well adjacent to WBL, 1 mgd •Replace 6 permits, 4 communities (SW 2) •Injection well(s) adjacent to WBL, 2 mgd •Replace 4 permits, 2 communities (SW 7) Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 4 Permits (SW 7) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township (South) New WTP? Summary of Options Type Ultimate Demand Scenario Options Replace groundwater supplies Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits with demand reductions (SW 2a) •Replace 7 permits (SW 3 and SW 5 ) •Replace 9 permits (SW 4) Replace groundwater supplies Hugo 2 •Replace 9 permits (SW 4-2) •Replace 7 permits with demand reductions (SW 3-2) •Hugo 1 options with expanded Hugo area supplied with surface water Augmentation Hugo 1 or Hugo 2 •Augmentation trigger elevation Combine surface-water supply with injection of treated wastewater Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits (2 options) with 1 mgd injection (SW 2, SW 6) •Replace 4 permits with 2 mgd injection (SW 7) •Replace < 6 permits with 1 mgd injection? Combine surface-water supply with injection of treated wastewater Hugo 2 Not tested, likely several options Thank You! Glen Champion glen.champion@state.mn.us 651-259-5652 Supplemental Slides Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 7 Permits (SW 3) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township (South) New WTP Model Results– Replace 7 Permits (SW 3) •Hugo 1 •Replace 7 permits, 5 communities Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 7 Permits (SW 5) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township New WTP Model Results– Replace 7 Permits (SW 5) •Hugo 1 •Replace 7 permits, 5 communities Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 9 (SW 4) White Bear Township (South) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USANew WTP Model Results– Replace 9 Permits (SW 4) •Hugo 1 •Replace 9 permits, 7 communities Model Results– Replace 9 Permits (SW 4-2) •Hugo 2 •Replace 9 permits, 7 communities Replace Groundwater Supplies – Other Tested Scenarios Scenario Brief Description Communities / Permits SW 2 (Hugo 1)Replace 6 Mahtomedi, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 2b (Hugo 1)Replace 6 with reduced demands Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Saputo Cheese USA, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW3-2 (Hugo 2)Replace 7 Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Saputo Cheese USA, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) SW 6 (Hugo 1)Replace 6 Mahtomedi, North Oaks, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township (2 systems) Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 6 Permits (SW 2b) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township (South) New WTP Model Results– Replace 6 Permits (SW 2b) •Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits, 4 communities •North Oaks and Woodbury  75 gpcd residential •Further demand reductions? •Other options? Model Results– Replace 7 Permits (SW 3-2) •Hugo 2 •Replace 7 permits, 5 communities •Needs demand reductions or other options Replace Groundwater Supplies – Replace 6 Permits (SW 6) North Oaks Saputo Cheese USA White Bear Township (South) New WTP Model Results– Replace 6 Permits (SW 6) •Hugo 1 •Replace 6 permits, 5 communities •Requires demand reductions or other options North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area Permits and Wells w/in 5 Mile Area Average Annual Volume of Water Use – Recent and Projected The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. The City of Lake Elmo | 3880 Laverne Ave N | Lake Elmo | MN 55042 1. 2012: Lawsuit Filed. In November 2012, the White Bear Lake Restoration Association and the White Bear Lake Homeowners Association filed a suit in Ramsey County District Court alleging the permitted too much groundwater use near White Bear Lake, causing the lake water levels to drop unacceptably. 2. 2014: Plaintiffs and DNR Reach Settlement Agreement. In December of 2014, the DNR and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit reached a settlement, contingent on achieving several requirements. The settlement agreement required: • Work on water conservation and efficiency strategies with 13 area public water suppliers. • Establish a protective elevation for White Bear Lake. • Support legislative funding for a feasibility and design study to shift the source water for six communities in the White Bear Lake area to surface water. • Achieve funding for the alternative water supply by the end of the 2016 Minnesota legislative session. • Inform the plaintiffs of groundwater use permit applications and permit changes in the area, and provide them an opportunity to comment on those applications and proposed permit changes. • Invite the plaintiffs to participate as members on the North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area project advisory team. 3. 2016: No Legislative Funding for Shift to Surface Water Use. The DNR and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit met with legislators to discuss the prospects of passing legislation in the 2016 session to address the “Phase 1” alternative water supply Northeast Metro Project opens in a new browser tab outlined in the settlement agreement. In April of that year, a bill was introduced to provide some funding to assess the feasibility of the “Phase I” project, but the measure was not enacted. Because the proposed bill was not enacted, the stay on the litigation was lifted per the terms of the settlement agreement and the lawsuit went to trial. The “Phase I” project as defined in the settlement agreement would have connected six municipalities to either raw or treated water purchased from St. Paul Regional Water Services. 4. 2017-2018: Ramsey County District Court Order and Resulting Permit Modifications. Following failure to obtain feasibility funding for the “Phase I” project before The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. The City of Lake Elmo | 3880 Laverne Ave N | Lake Elmo | MN 55042 the end of the 2016 legislative session, the lawsuit went to trial in March 2017. It was a bench trial (i.e., the judge, rather than a jury, acts as the fact finder) lasting three weeks. The District Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on August 30, 2017 and imposed a number of restrictions and requirements on the DNR. The primary outcomes of the Order were: (see DNR White Bear Lake Litigation 2017-2018.) 5. 2018 Court Order Changes, Legislation, DNR Appeal, Sustainability Analysis Completed. Court Order Amended In March 2018, the Ramsey County District Court amended its Order, allowing the DNR to issue permits for temporary groundwater appropriations within five miles of White Bear Lake, such as those needed for construction dewatering. Legislation In June 2018, a law was enacted (Minnesota Session Laws 2018, Chapter 181 - House File No. 4003 opens in a new browser tab) that prohibited the DNR from enforcing the permit modifications the DNR imposed pursuant to the Court Order (see above). This law was in effect through July 1, 2019. DNR Appeals to Minnesota Court of Appeals The DNR appealed the Ramsey County District Court ruling on September 12, 2018 to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on a number of issues related to the trial court decision. Sustainability Analysis Completed In October 2018, the DNR published the results of the court-ordered sustainability analysis using the transient groundwater flow model the DNR had developed: • Groundwater use has been declining. The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. The City of Lake Elmo | 3880 Laverne Ave N | Lake Elmo | MN 55042 • Current groundwater use complies with Minnesota’s groundwater sustainability standard. • Current groundwater use has contributed to water levels falling below the recently established protective elevation for White Bear Lake (established in 2016 to protect recreational uses). • Temporary irrigation bans within nearby cities would not have a significant effect on water levels in White Bear Lake. 6. 2019: Appeals Proceedings The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on the DNR’s appeal on April 22, 2019. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court decision in the case and remanded the matter back to the District Court for further administrative proceedings. On May 21, 2019, the plaintiffs in the case filed an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court under petition for further review. The Minnesota Supreme Court, on July 16, 2019, granted the petition for further review. 7. 2020: Supreme Court Ruling and Subsequent Steps. On July 15, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled (PDF), reversing portions of the Appeals Court’s Order and remanding the matter to the Court of Appeals to address the remaining unresolved issues. After further briefing, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, on December 28, 2020, affirmed the District Court's August 2017 Order (PDF). The Court of Appeals noted that the permit holders had the right to appeal certain permit amendments ordered by the District Court via a contested case hearing. The District Court maintains jurisdiction over the matter and continues to oversee DNR permitting activities in the White Bear Lake Area. Permit contested case hearings proceed On May 5, 2021, the DNR informed the Office of Administrative Hearings that the appeals process in state court was concluded and the contested case process could commence for the 20 permit holders that appealed the DNR’s modifications to their permits back in 2018. The contested case process is now ongoing, and the permit modifications remain in abeyance until that process is complete. 8. 2021-2022: Additional Court Order Implementation. Collective annual withdrawal limit for White Bear Lake The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. The City of Lake Elmo | 3880 Laverne Ave N | Lake Elmo | MN 55042 In early 2022, the DNR used its transient groundwater flow model to establish a collective annual withdrawal limit for White Bear Lake. This analysis determined that a reduction in water use of approximately 40% would be needed to maintain the protective elevation. The DNR determined that applying this reduction in accordance with the water use priorities in statute (Minnesota Statute 103G.261 opens in a new browser tab) would result in an allocation of 55 gallons per person per day, at current population levels…basically enough for domestic water use only. All other lower priority water uses for agriculture production, commercial, industrial and institutional purposes would need to be curtailed. Concluding that amending water appropriation permits in this fashion would not protect public health and welfare, the DNR sought clarification from the court on the implementation of the collective annual withdrawal limit. In April 2022, the District Court clarified that its order (PDF) was not intended to limit municipal water supplies to 55 gallons per capita per day. The DNR continues to work with the district court, plaintiffs and White Bear Lake area communities to identify the next steps required to implement the District Court Order. 9. 2023-2024: Contested Case Hearing Results. In May 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (PDF) pertaining to multiple contested case hearings on the District Court-required permit amendments. The administrative law judge (ALJ) in the case upheld three of the four District Court ordered conditions but did not uphold the residential irrigation ban permit condition. This condition required permit holders within five miles of White Bear Lake to implement a residential irrigation ban when the water level of White Bear Lake drops below an elevation of 923.5 feet and remain in effect until the water level reaches an elevation of 924 feet. The ALJ order included the following: • The contingency planning requirement to convert to surface water sources is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.” • The plan to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.” • Submitting annual reports to the DNR describing the work to phase down per capita water use is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.” The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. The City of Lake Elmo | 3880 Laverne Ave N | Lake Elmo | MN 55042 • Preparing, enacting, and enforcing a residential irrigation ban is so under-inclusive that it is an arbitrary and unlawful condition on appropriations of groundwater. An arbitrary condition cannot be reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.” The administrative law judge in the case further concluded, “The longer-term solution to the overuse of local groundwater supplies and lower levels of White Bear Lake, is to convert cities in the Northeast metro to surface water sources – as quickly as practicable. These conversions will not be simple or inexpensive; but they are necessary.” Several public water suppliers and the plaintiffs in the District Court case have appealed the ALJ order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. This case is currently in progress.