ERMUSR HANDOUT 04-13-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ : i 5 .~ I '; ~ ~,,,~1.~. ~ 'i'E i} ra ~}jra' i f ~' ':] i' ~ T' r r i ~ 'I i.~ ~ ~ ~ ~?- 1, ~) ~ 11}`~~ .3'.~. ~:~1e'! r ~ s r. ti~~~ Jr. 3G ~~i'1-gi'~ui1~ ~..I' :.4~C:~ ~ ,, fl~v~ ~ de.:ni~: •!W ~f~~i. U~'' ~.1; ; ~i.;> .. ~ ~ J'w ';:~` ~le'i of ~.C ~ ,~ ~l~d,:~' , ~Gi :, {J:. "'._ a _ ~ [~' ~l'" ..,,. 1~" fit, 'N~fr~j~i: ~ ~}("iilG~Z~ j~}i~ii's ~_SS~ ?t~~tf i~~ ~Cw~ui~~.~C~, -.~~Li"Ir i' i~l2~5 ~r'ou ~~~i~hi: also ~hecl, yogi ~lv~lii-~ead i~ro~c~o~ian pla~~i ~r ~~o~.i have one -- does i~ ~d~li~Lss ~ he arw~ ir1f1 ief'~ ~i ~~ =fc"~~~~~a~~~ ~~~~f{ is ~ian~ed and ~.ould it lie prai~ibi'cod ~fnder cl~i~~? i'~1it ~~,, ~~a~, ~ ~ ~~ =,oG~,~~ul~d, ~`~ , Youi~ city i~igh~ also check ~'th~ local watershed plan --Minn. S~~a~. ~ a3Q,23~ -~ CO See i~ ~~11iS IY'rIC~aC1~n well !5 pi•ohi~i~ed under ~ha~ plan, ;4 a~,; may also avant to l~now That ~~he s~~aice Depar'cment of Rublic ~-~ealth and the DAR l~~igh~~ be helpful to the 4i~~f Dn thls prr~paSal~ see thls exCe!"pt frv~n h~Ct ~ f ,~wwytl.i~liff~~'sE~4~~~~.~Dli?s fut+~i ~~Ctl~~~~,i'~'~~`~'"~ iUiany ai these proposed large-Capacity wells are located inside, or near, ~~he defined protecian area ~~or a public water supply. Two recent exarr}pies ca~~ be used to help describe poten'ial p-fobler~s than: ~ai~ ~eCD~~e concerns ~~ar the local utility. ln'che rirst example, a private irrigation Weil wasp!°oposed co supply wader ~~ar she high scr~ooi a~i~ie~~ic ~i:ields in a small northern Minnesota can~munity. School o~~ficials approached the utility wih a proposal to drill their own irrigation well, The utility expressed concerns to the school that this proposed well could severely impact both the quantity and q:uaiity of water supplied by the ~~wo shallow wells that public water users depended upon in that community. The iUifv Department of ~-~lealth was asi~ed to talte a loaf; a~c passible impacts ~~o she public water supply from high-capacity pur~ping o~l' ~~he aqui~i`er anal e;cisi:ing con'car~inaion plumes that had previously a~l:ected local water quality. after the IViD~I e;~pressed ~~heir concerns in a letter to ~~he school board, the proposal was wi~~hdrawn'and the school continues to utilize public drinl~ingwa'cer~l:or irrigation purposes. The second example involves a metropolitan suburb and a similar proposa! by the public schools to supply their own water to irriga~~e several athletic facilities. The water utility expressed concerns in a letter addressed to the M~ Department of Natural Resources the state agency responsible for issuing permits to extract public resourcesfor large watersuppiies~. The letter described three issues the public water utility had with the proposed private wells: loss of revenue to pay for water infrastructure already in place to supply the schoal water needs ~` potential water-quantity impacts the proposed schoal irrigation wails would have on the city's single-source aquifer, and m the fact that the City utility had, already in place, state-approved plans to both protect the aquifer and, reducethedemand upon local waterresaurces. The DNR issued a statement to the school informing them that a request to appropriate public resources for irrigation of school athletic facilities would not be approved in light of the utility's ~#-~rnc~llmni~ r~; ~l~r_ri~,pr mv~ ~tcl~Fur~1~nC3PI~~'9PY`Cf'~Pi~CY'1~IP~'11~'7I11'iPC ~~13'!"lI~P1~f1~I~~']n1114"~l ~,~~.~' ~~~~~~~~[J