4.1. ERMUSR 06-14-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At the January 2010 Utilities Commission meeting there was a general misunderstanding of the current state sprinkling restrictions. There were comments from the public in attendance that the Utilities did not have the authority to restrict water usage or sprinkling from private wells because the Council did not approve the proposed ordinance revisions in October 2010. However, the current City Ordinance Section 78-51 and the current Utilities' resolution do invoke the sprinkling ban for all within the City of Elk River even through the Council did not amend 78-51 as proposed. The City Council chose not to adopt the revised ordinance but that has not revoked the resolution that the Utilities Commission adopted under the authority of City Ordinance 78-51. The tone of the Council meeting was that they did not support changing the ordinance to restrict water usage for those with private wells. If the Utilities Commission intends to mirror the intent of the Council, the Commission will need to revise the 2009 Utilities' resolution. So the current status is that any resident with a single buildable lot has the right to put in a private well for sprinkling, but would have to follow the uniform water use restrictions that those on the water distribution system follow. There had been previous discussion that focused on the concern that the current water restrictions may be perceived as "crying wolf' during periods when not suffering drought conditions. Based on the information presented below as well as included by reference, the current water restrictions should not be perceived as sending a false alarm, but rather as conserving important resources: water supply, system capacity, system capability, and cost to efficiently run the water distributions system. It should also be noted that during drought conditions, the prudent course of action would likely include more drastic sprinkling restrictions such as no sprinkling at all. Because of Elk River's geographical location on the rim of the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer "bow]" centered under the Twin Cities metro area, water use and/or misuse are always a concern for ERMU and our customers. In 2008, ERMU had a study done to identify water supply alternatives for our City. Although this report does not directly address the issues of sprinkling and water use restrictions, it does show how precious and sensitive our water resources are in Elk River. Revoking or amending ERMU's resolution invoking water use restrictions may seem like it would have an insignificant impact to the Utilities. However, this is the tip of the iceberg of an important topic. Whether it is because of drawdown or aquifer contamination, our alternatives sources of water for the City are limited and could be costly. In addition to water usage concerns during drought conditions, the invoking of water use restrictions serves other equally important functions. The "odd-even" and "time of day" sprinkling restrictions communicate our commitment to the conservation of our precious resources. This is consistent with City of Elk River's Energy City Board's position on conservation. These usage restrictions also help to mitigate the volatility in pumping flow rate. This is similar to the demand side management used to control air conditioner use during the summer. By controlling the peaks, the system can be sized to be more cost effective. This helps to proactively control system costs that would inevitably be borne by the customer. The methodology is not unique to Elk River. As noted at the December 2010 Utilities Commission meeting, approximately 65% of the 71 cities surveyed by the Suburban Utilities Superintendent Association (SUSA) employ similar water use restrictions. These water use restrictions are not too "progressive" but rather the norm.