Committee lays over Lake Elmo water‑allocation bill amid DNR concerns and court history
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Representative Johnson's bill to exempt Lake Elmo from a court‑imposed 5‑mile allocation restriction was laid over after the city and DNR gave conflicting accounts: the city warned a $50 million PFAS treatment plant could be mothballed without new allocations; DNR said permit amendment processes are available and warned against precedent‑setting statutory directions.
Representative Johnson asked the committee to consider House File 33‑99 to address water allocation limits affecting Lake Elmo and to allow the city to use planned PFAS settlement funds for a treatment plant and new wells. Clark Schroeder, special projects manager for the City of Lake Elmo, testified that the city faces a court order limiting water allocations tied to a long White Bear Lake lawsuit and warned that a planned $50 million treatment plant funded through the 3M settlement could be mothballed if DNR refuses to authorize new wells: "This $50,000,000 plant...could be mothballed," he said, and argued the bill would prioritize "clean drinking water over boating."
Melissa Kuskie, director of ecological and water resources at the Minnesota DNR, told the committee the department amended Lake Elmo's permit in October 2024 to authorize up to 472,000,000 gallons per year (an increase of roughly 220,212,000 gallons) and that the agency expects standard permit amendment processes to accommodate future wells. Kuskie cautioned that a bill that directs specific permit authorizations in session law risks creating a precedent where communities request legislatively guaranteed water allocations, and noted that prior court‑ordered conservation measures affect multiple communities within five miles of White Bear Lake.
Members asked questions about alternatives such as connecting to surface water and about differences in hydrology across the Mount Simon–Hinckley system. Representative Fisher and others emphasized the court's finding that some prior permitting was unsustainable and that cumulative regional withdrawals matter for the lake's health. Representative Johnson thanked members and the DNR for the conversation; the chair laid the bill over for further study and stakeholder engagement so more options can be evaluated before any statutory change.
The committee did not take a final vote on changing statutory allocation rules; the bill was laid over for possible inclusion in future legislation, allowing time for DNR and other stakeholders to follow up and provide additional information.