2018.03.05 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for February 5, 2018 Page 7 of 10 cities. Bear talked about other conditions in the order and the DNR's change to Hugo's appropriations permit and requirement for plans for a partial or total conversion to surface water. Hugo has no viable surface water to support total conversion. A project was presented for a Metropolitan regional project that would cost $630,000,000. The City would have to rely on other entities, and it's difficult to rely on such a plan. The City has already complied with a partial conversion. He provided options to meet the requirements for contingency plans. The City could use water from several different sources, which would be prohibitively expensive. Another option would be to appeal the amendment to the City's permit; there is a 30 day appeal window. The third option would be to prepare a simple plan to meet the vague minimum requirements. Or, he explained, the City could do nothing and wait for the DNR to take enforcement action. The City was now appropriated more water than it uses, but it will be needed for future development. Other conditions of the order expected to be done by February 28th were the preparation of a residential irrigation ban, limitations put on total per capita use, and collaboration with other cities. He concluded by saying the City is doing an excellent job in water conservation and aquifer management. Staff was not requesting any action, but residents will start to look for remedies and a legislation solution will likely be necessary. Miron talked about Hugo's water use being under the allotted per capita use, and Bear explained that could be changed by one huge water user. Haas said the best way to get rid of an unfair law would be to vigorously enforce it. His said the City should proceed cautiously and wait for it to play out. Klein agreed. He said that at a recent MAWSAC meeting there was discussion on defining sustainability, and he felt no one had a good understanding. His opinion was to let it play out because it was likely to change. He added that Hugo has been a leader in conservation and may be relied on to provide information. Bear stated that Hugo's efforts have been effective, and he felt the DNR's requirements would not help conservation but instead affect density. The judgement does not help save water and bring up the lake. Petryk asked if this would all go away if the DNR prevails in their appeal, or how it would result if there was legislation. City Attorney Dave Snyder responded that it would go away if the DNR won the appeal, and a legislative initiative is a common response to judicial rulings. Miron stated there was a need to start having those conversations. Weidt talked about the option to do nothing, and said he felt that seemed to be the right path. John Waller said he hoped the City continued the reuse projects. The district board would be happy to work with the legislators and would encourage engagement of the counties as well.