2018.02.05 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for January 8, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Bear explained the order basically stated the DNR allowed White Bear Lake to drain by excessive pumping and instructed the DNR to prohibit new appropriation permits, review existing permits, and analyze impacts of all permits. He stated it was important to understand that the order applies only to the DNR, and there had been no direction given to the City. He showed the five mile radius line that is referenced in the order, and noted that Hugo's entire water system is impacted. Bear spoke about the negative impacts of not being able to obtain appropriation permits that are needed for construction de -watering, citing the Adelaide Landing Development as one example, who had since reapplied for a permit during the temporary stay. Bear talked about sustainability and the order's requirement to develop contingency plans for conversion to surface water supply which, by the order, is required to be done by August 29, 2018. Hugo has no viable surface water source for total replacement, and has already completed a partial conversion by reusing stormwater. He also talked about the order's residential irrigation ban that will be in effect until the lake is above the 924 elevation. Bear felt it was not practical and could be counter-productive. There were also limits placed in the order for water use per capita. Historically, Hugo has been below those thresholds. Bear compared the new DNR transient model with the stormwater model used by the USGS. He explained the transient model identified permits that impact the lake level the most, and it suggested there are other factors. Irrigation was not shown to be a meaningful factor, nor was Hugo's water use. Bear presented a list of appropriation permits said to have impacted the lake, and Hugo's permit was low on that list. In Bear's opinion, the more the City learns, the more convinced he is that Hugo has no impact on the water level of the lake. He concluded by saying the City should keep doing what it is doing, and staff was not requesting the Council take any action at this time. He also suggested considering whether there is a legislative solution to remove Hugo from any part of the action. Council had questions on the allowed 90 gallons per capita per day, and asked Bear to explain the impacts of an irrigation ban. Council also questioned what is meant by "sustainable". Bear stated there had been significant discussions on sustainability but is not as clear as it should be to impose a sustainability standard. Snyder reviewed what was done by the trial court judge in 2014 and the decision Hugo made to not intervene in the lawsuit because it was felt scientific questions should be answered by scientists and engineers, not lawyers. The City was already implementing water conservation measures. The order could now go to the Court of Appeals, and Snyder anticipated that in the future, the City may again be asked if it wants to participate in the lawsuit. Snyder stated he felt that, to the extent there is allegation that municipal pumping affects ground water, wells to the south are shown to have far more impact than Hugo's wells. Council asked about the review of the order, and Snyder explained the process saying that the trial court makes a ruling, and if the party is not satisfied, they can bring back to the trial court and ask them to reconsider. If they do not make a change, it can be brought before the court of appeals for a broader ruling. It was Snyder's belief the trial court would address the grievous demands in the order, but fundamental problems may remain.