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