8.d) Res 2-17-15-04 White Bear Lake vs DNRRESOLUTION NO. 02-17-15-04
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
permitted 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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, the 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 Scandia does not support
the settlement agreement for the following reasons:
The settlement agreement contains no benefits whatsoever for the City.
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" to supply 13 communities with surface water 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 over 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.
Phase 2 communities do not benefit from the equitable cost sharing arrangements
that Phase 1 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 DNR'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.
The stated water conservation goals are arbitrary.
The settlement grants Plaintiff's a role in reviewing appropriation permits. We are
unaware of the qualifications of the White Bear Lake Restoration Association, or
Homeowners Association to review such permits, and would expect additional time
and cost in responding to their comments.
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 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 impacted by 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 17th day of February, 2015 by order of the Scandia City Council.
Randall Simonson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristina Handt, Administrator/ Clerk