Laserfiche WebLink
<br />[204185/1] 18 <br />Rank City <br />11 Stillwater <br />12 Lino Lakes <br />13 New Brighton <br />14 White Bear Township – <br />Pump 1 <br />15 Lake Elmo <br /> <br />100. DNR likewise discovered that groundwater appropriations by cities that are <br />closer to White Bear Lake tend to have a greater impact on lake levels than appropriations <br />from more remote locations – even if the volume of groundwater withdrawn by a more <br />distant appropriator is greater. In this way, explains the Department, “distance is actually <br />a larger effect than magnitude.”100 <br />101. The municipal permit holders in this matter are all within the top 15 largest <br />influencers upon the levels of White Bear Lake.101 <br />102. Without some interventions, the impacts to White Bear Lake will be greater <br />as the populations in these communities continue to grow and their demand for water <br />increases.102 <br />103. The analysis from the transient model differed from the steady-state water <br />model in significant ways. First, it made clear that not every permit holder’s appropriation <br />of groundwater had the same, or similar, impact upon levels of White Bear Lake.103 <br />104. Additionally, the transient model also revealed that the shortages were <br />much worse that originally projected by the DNR. To keep White Bear Lake above its <br />Protective Elevation, withdrawals of groundwater from the aquifers needed to be reduced <br />by 40 percent – instead of 25 percent – and new water appropriation permits in the area <br />are not sustainable.104 <br />105. Worse still, the DNR projects that if water appropriation practices in the <br />Northeast Metro are not significantly changed, by 2040, the collective withdrawals of <br />groundwater by the permit holders above could reduce lake levels by almost three feet.105 <br /> <br />100 Tr. Vol. 3 at 18, 54 (Champion); DNR Ex. 3, Attachment B-1 at ES 1-2 (“The relative proportions of <br />[stage] effects are related strongly to the rates of pumping, the distance of the pumping from the lake, and <br />the aquifer(s) from which the water is pumped”). <br />101 See DNR Ex. 6 at 17. <br />102 DNR Ex. 12 at 28. <br />103 DNR Ex. 3, Attachment B-1 at ES 1-2 (“the elimination of pumping associated with each permit <br />individually illustrates the proportionally larger effects of pumping associated with some permits versus <br />others on lake levels”); DNR Ex. 3, Attachment B-1, Figure 8-8. <br />104 DNR Ex. 12; Hugo Ex. 23; Tr. Vol. 10 at 18 (Moeckel); Tr. Vol. 10 at 243, 256 (Doneen). <br />105 DNR Ex. 32 at 28.