2015-02-11 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q: Does the settlement force communities to switch their water source? A: No. In reaching the settlement,the DNR weighed long-term regional water needs,the risks of further litigation, and the need to ensure water sustainability for the region.The settlement was crafted with direct involvement from the two of the 13 local communities that elected to participate in the litigation. In order for any water supply proposal to go forward,the project would need legislative approval and an equitable funding mechanism. Q:What are the required conservation measures under the settlement? A: The DNR will work with groundwater permit holders within local 13 communities to adopt water conservation measures,with a goal of a 17 percent reduction in water use.This reduction would be measured against average water use over the past eight years.The plaintiffs will work with their membership and other residents who have private wells near the lake to adopt conservation measures.All parties agree to a consumption goal of 75 gallons per person per day, consistent with the Met Council's target for the Twin Cities area. Q:Who signed the settlement and how was it settled? A: All parties to the litigation have signed the agreement.This includes, the DNR,the two plaintiff groups(White Bear Lake Restoration Association and White Bear Lake Homeowners'Association),and the two communities that elected to intervene in the litigation (City of White Bear Lake and White Bear Township).The settlement was mediated by retired Minnesota Supreme Court associate justice James H. Gilbert and negotiations began in February 2014.The case was scheduled for trial in March 2015. Q: Does setting a protective lake elevation impact current groundwater permit holders in the region? A: Under state statute and rule, protective elevations are a tool available to DNR to ensure that appropriations do not unduly affect surface waters. Where a protective elevation for a surface water body is established and incorporated into a surface water permit,the surface water appropriation must cease when the water body falls below that elevation. In the case of a permitted groundwater appropriation potentially affecting a surface water with a protective elevation, the situation is more complex. DNR would first have to establish that the groundwater appropriation was causing the water body to fall below its protective elevation prior to ordering cessation of pumping. The complexity of surface-groundwater interactions could make such a clear causal connection difficult to draw. In this settlement,the DNR has agreed to set a protective lake elevation that will be used to regulate new groundwater permits or amendments to-existing permits. DNR would not be obligated to apply the protective elevation prior to completion of the Phase 1 water supply project. After completion of Phase 1,there is also an exemption if the DNR Commissioner determines that application would be unduly deleterious to public water supply. Moreover, the DNR has not agreed to establish a specific protective elevation for White Bear Lake. The protective elevation will be developed and applied in accordance with state statute and rule. Q: Does the settlement mean the DNR agrees with plaintiffs over the cause of the low water levels on White Bear Lake? A: No.The DNR does not agree the science supports the plaintiffs'theory that groundwater pumping is the primary cause of low water levels on White Bear Lake.The state's independent expert,a nationally recognized hydrogeologist, has concluded that the cause of the lake's decline in recent years is likely climate related. In addition, it is important to understand that variation in lake levels over time is important to lake health. However,the DNR does believe that groundwater resources in the north and east metro region may be oversubscribed in the future. Thus, it makes sense to act now to move communities to a more sustainable water supply system that can better accommodate future growth. Q: Did the judge ever make a factual determination on the cause of the recent low lake levels? A. No. Because this case did not go to trial,the judge has not heard or evaluated expert testimony and has made no factual determination regarding the cause of the low lake levels. At this point neither party has proved the cause of the low lake levels. Q:What else is the DNR doing to ensure groundwater sustainability in the northeast metropolitan area? A: For the past year,the agency has been working with northeast communities, businesses and other government agencies to develop a North and East Groundwater Management Area,which will result in a long-term plan for managing regional groundwater resources sustainably.That process,which is separate from the lawsuit,is ongoing and continues to be a high priority for the agency. As part of the settlement to the lawsuit,the DNR will appoint a member from each of the two plaintiffs'groups to the management area advisory team. P19