2024.05.20 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

[204185/1] 9 V. The State Court Litigation 51. After the level of White Bear Lake fell to its lowest-recorded elevation, the Restoration Association and the Homeowners Association filed suit against DNR in the District Court of Ramsey County. The suit claimed claiming that the water appropriations made by thirteen communities in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area reduced the levels of White Bear Lake, causing unlawful impairments to the lake.51 52. The Associations asserted that DNR’s management of the water appropriation permitting process resulted in “pollution, impairment, or destruction” of White Bear Lake – a water resource of the state.52 53. DNR asserted that the District Court had no jurisdiction to make orders regulating the Department’s issuance of water appropriation permits.53 54. During proceedings before the District Court, the Associations’ expert, Stuart Grubb, maintained that the collective water withdrawals authorized by the DNR in the Northeast Metro had a negative impact on the level of White Bear Lake. Mr. Grubb submitted a “water budget model” to show that cumulative withdrawals of groundwater by municipal pumping had lowered the level of the lake.54 55. Mr. Grubb opined that “to effect needed change, all wells within at least a five-mile radius should be subject to groundwater use restrictions.”55 56. The water budget model presented to the District Court did not attribute amounts of reduction in the level of White Bear Lake to the withdrawals made by each permit holder. Instead, the budget model only described the aggregated impacts of the annual withdrawals of groundwater.56 57. On August 30, 2017, after a three-week bench trial, the District Court found in favor of the Restoration Association and the Homeowners Association. The District Court concluded that the DNR’s administration of the water appropriation permit process resulted in excessive withdrawals of groundwater from the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers and impairments to White Bear Lake. These impairments, continued the District Court, violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.57 58. Among the key findings of the District Court were: 51 See generally White Bear Lake Restoration Association v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, No. 62-CV-13-2414, 2017 WL 9833672 (Dist. Ct. Ramsey Cnty. 2017) (WBL-Dist). 52 See WBL-Dist, slip op. at *1. 53 See generally White Bear Lake Restoration Ass’n ex rel. State v. Minnesota Dep’t of Nat. Res., 928 N.W.2d 351, 355 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 946 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2020) (WBL I) (the DNR argued “the district court was without jurisdiction to make orders concerning the DNR’s issuance of well permits”). 54 Tr. Vol. 2 at 96-97 (Bauer). 55 See WBL-Dist, slip op. at *26. 56 Tr. Vol. 2 at 97-98 (Bauer). 57 See WBL-Dist, slip op. at *70 (“Because the DNR violated MERA, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth in the Order for Judgment”).