ERMUSR MISC MEMO 03-11-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~.~ ~D `"° Conflict Among Water Users have NPit1ia_r! MRWA Source Water Specialist C'onfliets bet~~een public eater suppliers in '~Iinnrsota are rx~t widespread. but do orcw~. x Hire ail iii~ci~ Iii rue S~aie arc ili~uCt irrilirn- dous pressure to supply Mauer I~x rapidl}~ growing urban development near the lar~~rr cities and metropolita^ areas. There have been instances ~~~here public water supple wells in a comnnmity had an impact on the j revenue ghat it ~~ill ereatc ti,r the ]oral water supplier. ~~~ncratu~ a ~urnmunitr-~~~idc hr~~h- icili iii'~~iii~iii~ luC ui .i.~i L;c vi ~7iiiii~i iiiiiiiiC~ for retiren,en[ of public utilize construction and infrasiructun: loans. piulip,n~ capaut~ of a~ la~u~t puhh~ and p„- vale wells. ~1unicipal ~irlls have also been known to ha~~ an adverse impact un other natural resources. like prntectcd fens. I,imiis placed upon the appropriatio^ of water from some aquifers have I~orcrd sc~°eral of~thr pub- lie water suppliers to look at other sources of supple for drinkin« ~~~ater. Some of the mc» ~c rapidly ~~ru~~ ink arras are luokinz at the deeper aquifers and the ~1ississippi River as sources. whist, "TYpica{ly, the m:,y play an important role in WatGr-USe COI~~iC~S future ~1c~isions thafi do occur are not (~~ de,cr~~,ir~e between public s~~nrrr „.,~~~,~ 1„ i- or,t,rs 1~x water 'water suppliers, bu# ' snpphrs. often involve private water users." "Ivpically, the ~~°atcr-use ronf7icts that do ecru, are not between puhlie water suppliers, but often invol~r pri~~,te eater users. As an example, the cost of sul>plving public drink- ing water for use as ir,i~ration on athletic fields has driven parks. schools colle~~es. and other puhlie rccrcation pro~~iiicrs to investigate drillin~~ their c~~~u ~~~ater supple ~~ell(sl. At Cirst glance. the rest oC a }?rig-ate ~~~ell is of~trn lix,kcd at ,~> a very practical ~yav tc~ supple needed ~~~uter feu irrigatioe. However. many water user, do not take into cousidrration the lar~~c in~cstmcnt oi~ public funds shat nearby utilities have. ah~caily spent to construe the infrasn~uctw~c ra{uirrii to supply their water. L)rilling that private well can he a cost-effective ~~av for the private user to supple their o~yn ~~,iter, but the loss ol~ 18 • Winter 200th ;lianv of these proposed large-capacity ~~'ells :zee located inside, ur near, the defined pru- tecUun area for a public water supp(v. "hwo recent examples can he used to help drsrrihr potential problems that r~u~ become conrcrns for the local utilit~~. In the first example. a private irrigation ~~cll ~~~us proposed [o supply water i~or the high uhoul athletic fields in a small northern ~~Iinnrsuta com- ,1,unity. School o f f i r i a l~ approached the utility ~~~ith a pro- posal to drill their own irrigation well. The uti(it~ expressed con- cerns to the school tPn,t this proposed well could see°ere ly impact both the quantity and quality of water supplied by the two shallow ~~-ells that puhlie water users depended upon in that community. Tt~,e Rlinnrsota Department of Health (\~1DH, ~ti~~ asked to take a look at possible impacts to the public ~ ater supple from high-capaci- ti pumping of the aquifer and existing a>n- ta~7~ination plumes that had perviously aficct- cd local water quality. After the yTDII expressed their concerns in a letter to the school hoard. the proposal was withdra~yn and the school routinues to utilize public drir,kin~r ~~~ater for irri~~a(ion purposes. The scrwrd example v~volves a metropolitan suburb and a similar proposal by the. public schools to supply [heir own water to irrigate several athletic facilities. 'hhe ~y~,ier utility expressed runrerns in a letter addressed ~u