2017.09.18 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Homeowner' Association intervened on the side of the plaintiff, and the White Bear Township and City of White Bear intervened on the side of the defendant. Bear explained that the trial ended in mid-June, and the judge made a ruling that was very favorable to the plaintiffs. The Order determined the DNR had violated MERA and Violated Public Trust by causing the decline in water levels of WBL by allowing high capacity groundwater appropriations. The Order stated the DNR allowed excessive pumping, did not set limits, and failed to require plans for alternatives to pumping. Restrictions will be placed on new wells within five miles of White Bear Lake and all existing appropriation permits for using groundwater are to be reviewed by the DNR for compliance with sustainability standards, and the permit could be downsized. The Order also impacts private wells and requires the DNR to determine how much water can be withdrawn from the lake. The protective elevation of the lake has been set at 923.5, and if water levels go below that, it will trigger a residential irrigation ban that will be in effect until the elevation reaches 924. Bryan noted that the lake is rarely above the 924 elevation. Historical averages were used but are irrelevant for White Bear Lake due to the lake being augmented for decades, and the lake outlet was lowered twice. Bear reviewed established limit on appropriation permits that allow for 75 gallons per person per day for residents and 90 gallons per day per person for other non-residential uses. This would include businesses that use water, and it would be hard to measure their use per capita. The Order also requires creation of contingency plans for conversion to surface water and reporting on collaborative efforts. He noted Hugo currently complies with the capita per day thresholds and has already begun a conversion to surface water. Bear explained that the Order does not directly apply to the city; it applies to the DNR. He stated there is no scientific data to support its conclusion, and the language will be difficult to interpret and enforce. Bear pointed out the many flaws in the Order and stated it was too soon to know what the parties of the lawsuit will do in response to this Order. City Attorney Dave Snyder reminded Council about a discussion they had four years ago when they considered whether to be a part of the lawsuit. The state brought forward a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and the view of the Council at that time was that the questions regarding aquifers were best answered by the experts and should not be determined in a courtroom. The Council's determination four years ago was that the City could take a proactive role, which included conservation efforts and surface water reuse, and work cooperatively with local legislators. There are many thing in the Order that require interpretation and clarification; it's not the City's responsibilities to resolve the inconsistencies. Snyder suggested the Council continue to implement conservation steps, identify possible alternative sources of water, and continue to lead and work with legislative and business partners to ensure continued existence of municipal water. The Council discussed what was being required of them by the Order. Snyder explained the DNR has basically been ordered by the courts to take certain actions, and what the DNR would likely require from the cities is exactly what the City of Hugo has been doing the past four years regarding intelligent water use. Snyder further talked about flawed assumptions in the Order that has traced the lake level to water consumption, and said he anticipated there will be an appeal. It was Snyder's opinion that the Order was unclear, unfounded, and unreasonable. Council talked about the consequences that fall on others that will cause a huge public outcry and