2024.05.20 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

[204185/1] 13 68. On February 28, 2018, in compliance with the District’s Court order, the DNR amended 44 water appropriation permits. The amendments directed the appellant municipal permit holders to do the following: New Condition 1: Submit a revised Water Supply Plan to the DNR that includes a contingency plan to fully or partially convert “the source water” for the municipality from groundwater to surface water source(s). The contingency plan must include a schedule for funding[,] design, construction, and conversion to a surface water supply. New Condition 2: The permittee must prepare, enact, and enforce a residential irrigation ban when notified by DNR that the lake level of White Bear Lake has fallen below 923.5 feet, to continue until notified by the DNR that the lake level has reached an elevation of 924 feet. New Condition 3: Submit an enforceable plan to the DNR to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day. New Condition 4: Annually submit a report to DNR detailing [the permit holder’s] collaborative efforts with northeast metro communities to develop plans to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day.68 69. With respect to plans for conversion from groundwater sources to surface water sources, as provided in new Condition 1, the DNR noted that “[w]hether any conversion would occur shall be determined by the DNR and the holder of this permit.”69 70. Following the DNR’s amendment of 44 water appropriation permits in the Northeast Metro, 17 permit holders sought contested case hearings on the amendments. It is uncontested that each of the appellants timely sought a contested case hearing.70 71. Of the 17 permit holders that demanded a contested case hearing, seven municipal permit holders proceeded to an evidentiary hearing.71 72. The water appropriation permits held by the cities of New Brighton, Shoreview and Woodbury – each of which lies more than five miles from White Bear Lake – were not revised by the Department following the District Court’s order.72 68 See e.g., Maht Ex. 11 at 3. 69 Id. 70 Tr. Vol. 10 at 18 (Moeckel); see also WBL III, slip op. at *16, n. 7 (“The DNR notes in its supplemental brief to this court that all of the municipalities have requested contested-case hearings”). 71 See Tr. Vol. 1 at 2-7 (Notices of Appearance). 72 Tr. Vol. 10 at 283-84 (Doneen) (the permits were not amended “because the Court didn’t order us to”); see also Tr. Vol. 2 at 15-16 (Bauer).