HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.09.05 (2)WBL/DNR Lawsuit Report
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
City Council
1
Background
WBL Restoration Association
WBL Homeowners Association
-vs-
MN DNR
City of White Bear Lake
White Bear Township
MERA
2
Trial ended in Mid June
Aug 30, Judge’s Order
Judge Margaret Marrinan
140 pages long
Ruling is favorable to the Plaintiffs
Order applies to the DNR
3
Declarations
DNR has allowed high capacity groundwater appropriations
Violates MERA
Violates Public Trust by causing a decline in WBL and failing to take corrective action
DNR allowed the lake to
be drained from excess pumping, issued permits that are not sustainable; failed to set withdrawal limits from the lake; failed to require contingency plans for alternate water supplies,
etc.
4
Order – DNR actions
Prohibition on new wells or increased appropriations within 5 miles of the lake
Review of all existing permits for compliance with sustainability standards
If a permit is determined
to be out of compliance with a sustainability standard, it will be down-sized
Analyze cumulative impacts of permits on the lake to determine whether pumping is sustainable
5
Order – impacts to wells (permits) within 5 miles of WBL
Set a collective annual withdrawal limit for WBL
923.5 protective elevation – triggers residential irrigation ban – until lake reaches 924.
Limit on all permits to:
75 gal/cap/day residential
water use
90 gal/cap/day total water use
Create and submit contingency plans for total or partial conversion to surface water supply
Funding design, construction, and conversion
Report
on collaborative efforts
6
Order – DNR actions
No additional groundwater permits until DNR understands the impact to WBL and the aquifer
Work with Met Council on conservation goals
Require water supply plans to have measurable conservation
goals that can be enforced with consequences for non-compliance
7
Staff Observations
Conclusion is very unfavorable to the DNR
We disagree with the conclusion
Does not apply directly to the City, rather it applies to the DNR
The order’s language is curious and will be
difficult to interpret and enforce
It is very rare when the lake is above 924 elev.
Historical averages were used and are irrelevant for WBL
Lake was augmented for decades
Lake outlet
was lowered twice
8
Other observations
Groundwater wells and appropriations are different
Order impacts appropriation permits
Hugo has one permit with 5 wells – representing a large geographic area
There are many “permits”
within 5 miles of WBL
Hugo complies with both 75 gal/cap/day and 90 gal/cap/day standards
Hugo has begun partial conversion to surface water with robust stormwater re-use program
9
Irrigation ban
Should be considered a permanent ban
Residential irrigation only
Golf courses would appear exempt
No obvious exception for stormwater re-use???
No obvious credits granted for groundwater
recharge efforts???
Does not appear to apply to individual private wells
Might apply in locations that are much farther than 5 miles from the lake
10
Next steps
Too early to know what the lawsuit parties might choose to do
Staff is not requesting any council action
11