Laserfiche WebLink
<br />[204185/1] 17 <br />94. Further, the DNR’s transient model included detail on the rates at which <br />surface waters evaporate – items that were not part of the steady-state model.94 <br />95. DNR tested the transient water model during the fall of 2017, incorporated <br />new data as it became available, and updated the model still further in both 2018 and <br />2019.95 <br />96. The transient model “allows the DNR and communities to evaluate, for the <br />first time, the cumulative and individual effects of permitted groundwater pumping on <br />water levels within White Bear Lake.”96 <br />97. The model quantifies current and projected future impacts to White Bear <br />Lake from the groundwater appropriation by various permit holders.97 <br />98. The DNR transient model is the best available science with respect to the <br />likely impacts of permit conditions. It is more accurate than the steady-state and “water <br />budget” models that were available at the time of the District Court’s decision.98 <br />99. By October of 2017, DNR knew the impacts that withdrawal of groundwater <br />by specific cities had upon the level of White Bear Lake. According to the transient water <br />model,99 the rank order of influencers is: <br />Rank City <br />1 City of White Bear Lake <br />2 White Bear Township – <br />Pump 2 <br />3 Mahtomedi <br />4 Vadnais Heights <br />5 Oakdale <br />6 North St. Paul <br />7 Shoreview <br />8 Saputo Dairy Foods <br />9 Woodbury <br />10 Hugo <br /> <br />94 Id. at 22. <br />95 Id. at 26-27. <br />96 DNR Ex. 3., Attachment A at 5. <br />97 Id. at 22; see also Tr. Vol. 3 at 28 (Champion). <br />98 See Tr. Vol. 2 at 95-96 (Bauer); Tr. Vol. 3 at 15-16, 19-20, 243 (Champion); Tr. Vol. 4 at 58, 96 (Bauer). <br />99 DNR Ex. 3, Attachment B-1, Figure 8-8; Tr. Vol. 3 at 60, 222-25, 228 (Champion); see also DNR Ex. 6 <br />at 6; DNR Ex. 11 at 10.