HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.02.02 RESO 2015-12RESOLUTION 2015-12
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE PROFFERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
THE WHITE BEAR LAKE RESTORATION ASSOCIATION RELATING TO
REGIONALIZATION OF MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, the White Bear Lake Restoration Association, launched a lawsuit against the
Minnesota Department of Resources (DNR) asserting complaints about the water level in White
Bear Lake and claiming that the DNR violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA)
and the Public Trust Doctrine among other allegations; and
WHEREAS, the lawsuit contained claims, propounded by the Plaintiffs hired representatives,
which asserted that by allowing thirteen local communities to use groundwater for their public water
supply, including primarily drinking water, the DNR pennitted too much groundwater to be used.
This, the lawsuit claimed, affected recreational uses in White Bear Lake, Plaintiffs, and their hired
representatives, thus demanded constriction of groundwater uses by neighboring Cities including
suggesting in their written discovery responses that municipal water wells be terminated (in a
manner to be determined by the DNR) because, claimed the Plaintiffs representatives, pumping of
municipal drinking water resulted in a recent decline in water levels of White Bear Lake; and
WHEREAS, DNR denied those allegations and responded by pointing out that the: claimed recent
reduction in water levels in White Bear Lake was
• a cyclical decline which occurs at varying years over the long existence of the lake and then
reverses; and
• that it was related to climate patterns; and
• that it was also (and more obviously) related to cessation of a long-standing practice of
directly pumping water into the lake to maintain its levels; and
• that, despite the claims of Plaintiffs paid experts, even independent studies were
preliminary and did not plainly establish a link between drinking water pumping and the
depth of water in White Bear Lake and that additional study and consideration was needed
to understand this complex inquiry; and
• that, ultimately, the entire matter was a complex inquiry, more aptly suited to be explored
and resolved by dispassionate scientific inquiry, rather than to be determined by the claims
of Plaintiff s paid advocates through lawsuits; and
WHEREAS, well before the lawsuit, the City of Hugo encouraged and developed mechanisms for
recapturing and conserving surface water and surface water runoff for use to replace or supplement
ground water use; and
WHEREAS, though the City of Hugo encouraged the DNR to contest the Plaintiffs claims
vigorously, Plaintiffs and the DNR have agreed to a settlement which, among other things:
• the parties have agreed to a $623 million regional water supply project to serve 13
communities; and
• the parties have agreed to a new revenue generating mechanism through taxation, fees, or
other means to pay for operation of a new regional water supply project; and
• the agreement creates a requirement to establish a protective elevation for White Bear Lake;
and
• the agreement requires the DNR to use their "best efforts" to enforce through appropriation
permits new water use restrictions, conservation standards, and water rate structures; and
• the agreement requires implementation of a groundwater management area plan; and
WHEREAS, MN Statutes 103G.261 includes water allocation priorities, among them domestic
water supply, agricultural irrigation, and power production. Non-essential uses are assigned the
lowest priority, among which are recreational uses among others; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City of Hugo does not support the
settlement agreement for the following reasons:
The entire predicate of the settlement agreement is speculative and premature. Current
science does not support or guarantee that implementation of the settlement agreement will
increase lake levels of White Bear Lake,
Extensive scientific study remains underway by the USGS and others concerning interaction
between ground waters and surface waters, and adopting a complex and expensive
regulatory framework which decreases availability and increases cost of municipal drinking
water is not warranted.
The "Project" which proposes to supply 13 communities with surface water drawn from
limited sources would require communities to connect to a regional water supply system as
a mandate. The City opposes this approach, as it wishes to maintain local control aver
important decisions that impact its citizens.
There are alternatives that likely would be more feasible, effective, and less costly than the
solutions outlined in the settlement.
0 The "Project" will considerably increase operating costs of the City's water utility.
Phase 2 communities do not benefit from the equitable cost sharing arrangements that Phase
I communities benefit from.
The City opposes the creation of a new taxing district or other fee structure to pay for
operation of a water supply system that does not serve the City.
The settlement concludes that all parties, including the DNR, agree that surface water should
be the source of water for the northeast metro. The DT's North and East Metro
Groundwater Management Area planning process has not been complete and has not
reached this conclusion. The agreement predetermines the outcome of the process, and
requires implementation of a plan without supporting facts or data or input from
stakeholders.
0 The stated water conservation goals are arbitrary,
A protective elevation will be established for White Bear Lake that may impact
appropriations and future appropriations of groundwater.
The settlement grants Plaintiffs a role in reviewing appropriation permits. Plaintiffs have
already suggested that the remedy they demand includes placing restrictions on municipal
drinking water wells and increasing the cost therefor.
0 The boundaries used to select the 13 communities that are impacted by the settlement were
set arbitrarily without any basis in science or fact. Some of the wells serving municipal
cipal
water supplies within the Phase 2 communities are located in aquifers other than the Prairie
du Chien / Jordan aquifers, but they are still impacted by the settlement. Forest Lake's
municipal water supply is currently drawn from the Mount Simon Aquifer, There has been
no indication that utilization of the Mount Simon Aquifer has had any negative impact on
any surface waters.
The Prairie du Chien / Jordan aquifer does not exist under all 13 communities that are
subject to the agreement. Many other communities impact the aquifer, but are not made part
of the communities subject to regionalization or restriction under the settlement agreement.
The economic impact of the settlement is profound, as it will negatively impact the region's
growth, economic development potential, and will add significant financial burden to
residential and commercial water users in the north and northeast metro.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City supports the unification of
all Northeast Metro Cities in active opposition to the implementation of the terms of the settlement
agreement.
Adopted and passed this 2"d day of February, 2015 by order of the Hugo City Council.
Tom Weidt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michele Lindau, City Clerk