Laserfiche WebLink
Updates on the April 9.2015 Water Summit and 2015 Legislation <br /> City Administrator Bryan Bear provided in update on the last Water Summit held on April 9, <br /> 2015 and the outcome of the recent legislative session. <br /> Metropolitan Council Discussion <br /> Sandy Rummel and Sam Paske from the Met Council talked about the Master Water Supply Plan <br /> and the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee(MAWSAC), and they assured <br /> the group that they have no interest in,or ability to,take over water supply systems from <br /> communities. They talked about the changes due to recent legislation and stated they were <br /> receiving good feedback from communities and were happy with the Technical Advisory <br /> Committee. A draft of the Plan was on their website,and there will be more public meetings <br /> held. It was explained that the local water supply plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan <br /> process. Sewer interceptors direct growth,as does water,but water needs to be addressed on a <br /> regional level, since water does not have geographical lines. It was said that the DNR and <br /> Metropolitan Council need to work together. Also talked about were grant opportunities from <br /> the Met Council for projects that are regional and good examples of sustainability and long term <br /> stewardship. It was stated that all cities needed to have this information and circulate it. The <br /> Met Council stated they would supply it and would also like to present some information in the <br /> plan. They informed the group that there was a stormwater reuse toolkit online. <br /> MN DNR Discussion <br /> Barb Naramore and Julie Ekman from the DNR talked about the Groundwater Management Area <br /> planning process. It was stated that new statute directs the DNR to work with a range of <br /> stakeholders,and there was a question on how to define"negative impact". They explained that <br /> the GWMA was a valuable planning tool, and they appreciated everyone's comments that have <br /> resulted in important changes. The plan was almost ready for signature. It was noted by City <br /> staff that the plan will get approved because it has to,due to the White Bear Lake settlement <br /> agreement. Many acknowledged that cities are frustrated and cautious about what the DNR is <br /> doing, fearing the DNR was trying to take away local control. It was asked if the DNR had funds <br /> available to cities,and the DNR stated they did not but a small part of the settlement agreement <br /> is committed to support efforts on water reuse and recharge,and state funding may be available <br /> for communities in those areas. A Hugo Council Member stated that the DNR can help cities by <br /> not costing them money. The Bald Eagle Lake dam project was referred to,and the DNR was <br /> asked to assist Hugo in their pending application. <br /> White Bear Lake Settlement Agreement Discussion <br /> City Administrator Bryan Bear talked about the WBL Settlement Agreement and referred to an <br /> article in The Citizen stating it was very well written. Bryan stated the plaintiffs in the lawsuit would <br /> likely come to a meeting to talk to the group if invited. A requirement in the lawsuit is for the DNR <br /> to establish a protective lake elevation. The DNR stated that they have an interdisciplinary team to <br /> help do that,and there will be an opportunity for stakeholder participation. It was stated by the DNR <br /> that they have direction to work with individual communities on their water supply plan,and they <br /> will use some of the things they learn through the settlement process to assist in that. There will be <br />