Laserfiche WebLink
<br />[204185/1] 2 <br />STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES <br />1. Whether the permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to <br />submit a contingency plan for a total or partial conversion to surface water sources for <br />water supplies is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the <br />state?” <br />2. Whether the permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to <br />“prepare, enact, and enforce a residential irrigation ban” when notified by the DNR that <br />the elevation of White Bear Lake has fallen below 923.5 feet (and to continue this <br />prohibition until notified by DNR that the lake elevation has reached an elevation of <br />924.0 feet) is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state?” <br />3. Whether the permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to <br />submit enforceable plans to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons <br />per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day, is reasonably necessary for <br />the “safety and welfare of the people of the state?” <br />4. Whether the permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to <br />submit annual reports to DNR detailing their efforts to develop plans to phase down per <br />capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to <br />90 gallons per day is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of <br />the state?” <br />SUMMARY OF DISPOSITIONS <br />For the reasons detailed in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and <br />Memorandum below, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that: <br />1. The permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to submit a <br />contingency plan for total or partial conversion to surface water sources for water supplies <br />is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.” <br />2. The permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to “prepare, <br />enact, and enforce a residential irrigation ban” is so underinclusive that it is an arbitrary <br />and unlawful condition on appropriations of groundwater. An arbitrary condition cannot <br />be reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state,” as those <br />words are used in Minn. Stat. § 103G.315, subd. 6 (2022). <br />3. The permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to submit <br />enforceable plans to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day <br />and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day, is reasonably necessary for the <br />“safety and welfare of the people of the state.” <br />4. The permit amendment requiring the appellant permit holders to submit <br />annual reports to DNR detailing their efforts to develop plans to phase down per capita <br />residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons <br />per day is reasonably necessary for the “safety and welfare of the people of the state.”