White Bear Augmentation

[mallardnwalleye]

Here is an Article on a Bill that would from the looks of it directly augment White Bear Lake with water from the Mississippi River. Here is the link to the article Lake Augmentation White Bear Press

What is everyone's thoughts?

[leech~~]

Here is an Article on a Bill that would from the looks of it directly augment White Bear Lake with water from the Mississippi River. Here is the link to the article Lake Augmentation White Bear Press

What is everyone's thoughts?

Mueller told the committee “media coverage of the issue has helped change the discussion from rich homeowners around the lake to making it more of a regional issue, which it really is.”

Huum, I wonder which committee member has a house on the lake and hates to keep adjusting their dock?

[pushbutton]

Would rather have the lake owners send the bill to the the surrounding communities that I am assuming are pumping the aquifers dry. Seems like a bad precedent to start without changing the reason for it happening.......suppose it would actually keep some of the river water here though. Say hello to zeebs and eventually asian carp white bear lake!!! Who do you send that AIS ticket to?

[RuKiddingMe]

My grandfather has told me stories from that past that this isn't the first time WBL has taken a lake level dive like this, but he did say this one is lasting longer. So my question is what happens when they augment the lake with out an outside resource and the "cycle" is over will the lake and surrounding areas be facing flooding, or is the popular thought that these lake levels are permanent problem?

[Tom7227]

Pouring water into the lake before solving the problem of excessive use of groundwater is like putting makeup on a pig. Hugo, Centerville, Lino, and two others are meeting to discuss a joint operating agreement on their water systems. Hugo is spending a lot of dough on diverting rainwater to beneficial uses. But until they, WBL and WB Township get off of well water based systems the problems can't be solved.

Yes, in the 30's the lakes were low due to drought. I have seen pictures where the south end of Bald Eagle was being planted to crops. But the studies have shown dramatic increases in the amounts of water being taken from the aquifers and at least the preliminary USGS study shows that water is leaking out of WBL because of the lowered aquifer levels.

As for invasives the plan involves construction of a treatment system that supposedly will filter them out. Several lakes already are using this system, I think it includes Snail Lake.

Solve the aquifer depletion problem and let the lake refill on its own.

[john.wells]

Would rather have the lake owners send the bill to the the surrounding communities that I am assuming are pumping the aquifers dry. Seems like a bad precedent to start without changing the reason for it happening.......suppose it would actually keep some of the river water here though. Say hello to zeebs and eventually asian carp white bear lake!!! Who do you send that AIS ticket to?

I was thinking the same thing. The Ole' Miss is already diverted into the St. Paul water supply through the North Oaks area chain of lakes. I wonder how they are faring with AIS. If you look around White Bear, there are still pump houses surrounding it. From what I understand, they took groundwater when they were built (I believe the 30's) and dumped it into WBL to fill it up. I remember in the late 80's the lake was at about where it is now, maybe not AS severe, but it was down enough where developers wanted to build houses on the new shoreline. I wish they did, oh how I would have laughed when 2 years later the lake was up to near record high levels.

[jentz]

The lake has had these problems for years.Someone mentioned the development in the 80s.1988 was the year the whole state was in heavy drought! In the 30s the lake was noted for tour boats and city folk recreation,I believe I have read where the tour boats were dry ground.That drought was maxed out in 1938.You may find pics on the DNRs site of aerial photos of the lake in 38,The development has skyrocketed on the lake and the whole watershed.Now days the lake is basically private and adjusting to the low aquifer levels from usage.Let the lake shore owners complain all they want! Why should others pay to keep their property value up!

What should be happening is some water for future use thats pottable,the aquifers can't handle that usage(thats obvious). Soon the seepage of nitrates will enter the low undersurface water levels and the wells will be unfit as not pottable. Like any city or community they should find a large water source (Mississippi) divert it to a water treatment plant at their own expense,before its a gotta do it now issue.

the shore owners aint special and should do what any community would do.

[Tom7227]

While I understand those who think that the costs for the solution should be borne by the adjacent lake shore owners the problems cause impact the economy of a much larger area. I don't agree with the plan to augment the lake and wouldn't spend a dime of my money to do it. But the groundwater problem is regional and in a much larger area than WBL.

[john.wells]

give it time, seriously, and it will come around. I will agree that the area municipalities need to address their water source.

[mallardnwalleye]

I pretty much agree with all that has been said.

The idea gone way wrong on this Bill is:

If the state pumps treated river water into White Bear Lake you have solved the people on White Bear Lake's problem but have ignored the much larger NE Metro problem of a dwindling aquifer that effects other lakes and can only effect more as growth happens. It makes no sense.

The only way you should spend the taxpayers money is through a well engineered project that restores the aquifer and provides for some growth in the NE Metro.

White Bear is my home fishing lake and the project would be a benefit to me but I think one has to look beyond their own self interest and think of what is best for everyone over the long term.

[mallardnwalleye]

Some quick thoughts-

1. You first need to prove that White Bear and the other lakes in NE Metro that are much lower are so because of a depleted aquifer. There is another study being done that will be more thorough but it hasn't been completed as of yet. The good news is that the previous study showed divergence between rainfall amounts and lake levels happening in 2003 so we would have to figure out what the aquifer lag is to rainfall++ consumption-- but at least the divergence isn't many years ago which would be much more difficult to remediate.

2. Augmenting only White Bear would ignore the larger problem and could leave the state liable for lawsuits from other "lower" NE Metro Lakes.

3. By augmenting only White Bear you couldn't conscientiously have growth in the NE Metro unless you fixed the area wide aquifer problem.

4. An area wide aquifer solution through river water distribution, waste water precipitation, and conservation would solve other problems such as the PFC/PFOC aquifer pollution, water pumping and remediation that is currently going on in the East Metro.

Here are a couple State Congress people to write to on what looks like a White Bear Only Augmentation Bonding bill and not an area wide aquifer bill.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Those are my quick thoughts. What are yours?

[Tom7227]

Today's White Bear Press has an article on the subject. The cost estimates vary considerably depending on the source of the estimate. $24 mil vs $55-90 mil. http://www.presspubs.com/white_bear/news/article_75c1a25a-b491-11e3-8087-001a4bcf887a.html

The article also mentioned that it may be possible to dig a two pipe system and use the second pipe for residential use. It also talks about building a treatment system for that water.

I don't understand why they can't just hook up to the St. Paul Regional Water Service. I was at a meeting where the rep from their said they are only running at less than 50% capacity and have authority to draw significantly more water from the river. I assume they could get treated water up here for municipal use but no one is talking about that possibility.

[mallardnwalleye]

Tom,thanks for the article link.

My guess is they are going to do the "White Bear Only Augmentation" for sure and first if it is proven beyond 50% that the cause of White Bear Lake being lower is the DNR Permitting excess pumping from area wells.

I think based on the current "information" that there is a greater than 50% conditional probability but that does not mean there is a greater than 50% unconditional probability as the information we currently have is incomplete and there is not absolute certainty in it. We will have greater certainty as we get more "information" from the studies going on.

My hope is that this doesn't end up being a "White Bear Only" solution and a full "NE Metro Aquifer" solution plan is adopted and implemented.

I also have concerns about filling the lake from the top down instead of from the bottom (aquifer) up which is how it happens naturally. I am no hydrologist and perhaps there is no risk but a study by the DNR in the 90's showed 84% of the augmented water that is pumped into the lake in years past flowed out to the aquifer. I am concerned that the more interaction from the lake to aquifer that you get from pumping, the greater you make the set point in flow of lake water into the aquifer. Again I'm no hydrologist and the systems of groundwater, head pressure, aquifer head pressures, bedrock, and porosity are too complex to take an educated guess. I would want several hydrologists to sign off that the augmentation of water above what the aquifer would naturally hold is without risk.

Again to fill "White Bear Only" would ignore the actual problem.

Here is a C and P of the bill as it stands now

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to capital investment; appropriating money for a lake water augmentation

1.3system for White Bear Lake; authorizing the sale and issuance of state bonds.

1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. WHITE BEAR LAKE WATER AUGMENTATION SYSTEM.

1.6 Subdivision 1. Appropriation. $....... is appropriated from the bond proceeds

1.7fund to the Metropolitan Council to predesign, design, construct, and equip a lake water

1.8augmentation system for White Bear Lake.

1.9 Subd. 2. Bond sale. To provide the money appropriated in this section from the

1.10bond proceeds fund, the commissioner of management and budget shall sell and issue

1.11bonds of the state in an amount up to $....... in the manner, upon the terms, and with

1.12the effect prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, sections 16A.631 to 16A.675, and by the

1.13Minnesota Constitution, article XI, sections 4 to 7.

1.14EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

It states in the language of the bill "Augmentation for White Bear Lake" it doesn't mention a ground water augmentation system.

If they fill "White Bear Lake Only" I think they make a symbolic statement.

If they fix they fix the "NE Metro Aquifer Problem" for good, I think they also make a symbolic statement.

[graf703]

I was in Mexico a month ago and met a hydrogeologist from North Dakota. It was interesting speaking with him because he says everyone in their specialty knows about White Bear Lake. I didn't realize it was the phenomenon that it is. It's never happened on this scale for as valued of a body of water as WBL.

Speaking with him, one possible solution was to 'case' the bottom of the lake where the seeping is happening. The danger would be a lack of outflow creating poor water quality. His words were it could become a "salt lake". However, it would be feasible to artificially create outflow of the lake if necessary.

I haven't kept up on this nearly as much as tom and Mallard. However, it has to be way more cost effective.

[Tom7227]

Not sure that sealing the lake is a solution. If the aquifer isn't so depleted it actually adds water to the lake. WBL has a small watershed which is part of the 'problem'. Cutting off the springs would be a bad idea and the 'spring's may actually end up being part of the drain if the aquifer is too low.

WBL is getting well known because the situation is creating a lot of attention on the issues concerning the use of groundwater vs aquifers. I suspect areas in the SW US have experienced even worse problems. Importing knowledge from other areas of the country/world may not be that bad an idea to get ideas.

[mallardnwalleye]

I was in Mexico a month ago and met a hydrogeologist from North Dakota. It was interesting speaking with him because he says everyone in their specialty knows about White Bear Lake. I didn't realize it was the phenomenon that it is. It's never happened on this scale for as valued of a body of water as WBL.

Speaking with him, one possible solution was to 'case' the bottom of the lake where the seeping is happening. The danger would be a lack of outflow creating poor water quality. His words were it could become a "salt lake". However, it would be feasible to artificially create outflow of the lake if necessary.

I haven't kept up on this nearly as much as tom and Mallard. However, it has to be way more cost effective.

Thanks for the input graf. I didn't realize WBL and the aquifer was known nationally. The plug idea sounds like the little boy in Holland who sticks his finger in the dike.

I think you have to fix White Bear Lake so it is what it was before it may have gone down X ft. from aquifer depletion. I think they use the 1980- 2003 precipitation to lake level relationship as the basis for what "before" is.

Many times when you don't fix something for good and you put a patch on it you get other problems and you haven't solved the original problem for the long term.

As for money ....How we can spend $600 million on a bridge and $350+ million on a luxury Vikings stadium and not REPAIR a lake we may be ruining is beyond me.

You also have to weigh in the cost of not having growth in the NE Metro as you couldn't conceivably have much without a different groundwater withdrawal-wastewater treatment system.

[Tom7227]

Another White Bear Press article give an indication that the idea of augmenting the lake is a loser. I wonder how long it took someone to come to the conclusion that getting the water from the St. Croix was a no go.

http://www.presspubs.com/white_bear/news/article_b29e07ae-b9f5-11e3-b78b-0019bb2963f4.html

[jentz]

Its to bad people want a fix and almost demand it at any expence to others,Ignoring its their own fault.I guess its a me me me era.Take everything leave nothing and dont care

[mallardnwalleye]

I read the article and the basics of what it said are:

The Met Council sent a letter to the state lawmakers that augmenting White Bear Lake Only would be costly and might not be effective.

The Met Council will release a more detailed plan in June.

The Mississippi River is a better option than the St. Croix.

Vadnais Lake (Which indirectly has river water pumped through it) would be the most likely source of water.

My thoughts for whatever they are worth are:

It's good to see the Met Council saying what they are saying. We will see what happens with the doing.

If the Lakes (White Bear and others in the NE Metro) are down because of aquifer depletion we have to fix the aquifer.

Lets first make sure they are down because of the aquifer depletion.

If you fix the Lake(s) there is a clear choice.

1. An augmentation of White Bear Lake Only

or

2. An area wide solution to an aquifer problem.

One would be a private patch for the privileged that is paid for by the public.

One would be a permanent solution to the problem that provides for all the public.

[tip_upclyma]

AMEN! Lots of "experts" out there with these grand plans to "fix the world"...but when you say to them "That is a great sounding idea, but the only question I have is where is the money going to come from to fund this?"...and then they look at me like I am the crazy one.

[mallardnwalleye]

AMEN! Lots of "experts" out there with these grand plans to "fix the world"...but when you say to them "That is a great sounding idea, but the only question I have is where is the money going to come from to fund this?"...and then they look at me like I am the crazy one.

Tip Up,

Good question about the money.

To possibly fix the White Bear Lake Only problem won't be cheap $49 million according to the MET Council and $25 million according to the WBL Restoration Assoc. consultant. The WBL Restoration Association is suing the MN DNR with the help of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Cerisi Law. There is a GAG ORDER on the case so we the public can hear few if any details about it. I sure do hope we hear what the resolution is. I sure do hope they are fighting for the public at large and not White Bear Lake Only.

What it would take for a Area wide Aquifer fix $$???. $49+ million??$100 million??

In the long run it may be cheaper than we all think. You could possibly use wastewater that currently goes to the Mississippi River, treat it , then precipitate the water back into the aquifer. In Texas they treat it and pump it right back in the aquifer.

The shift in the relationship of precipitation to lake levels occurred in 2003 so unless there is a great lag in that relationship, we don't have that large a volume of water to supplant. If you do the numbers on community pumping, aquifer size and lake level decrease over the past 10 years it in realty isn't that much.

If it is the aquifer depletion that is causing the problem and you don't fix it - You will slowly continue to lower many lakes in the NE Metro as you are taking more water out of the aquifer than the rain can replace.

I really think you can't do that.

If you look in perspective at the money it will take to fix the aquifer problem. Here are some things to compare it to.

Minneapolis is spending $150 million on a luxury stadium for a private business.

The State is spending $350 million for the same stadium.

I suppose the question for the state is- Do you fix the plumbing in your house first or do you spend the money instead on a ticket for a luxury box at the Vikings game?

[mallardnwalleye]

Well it looks like the State didn't give the White Bear Lake (Only)Augmentation a unspecified dollar amount as it was going to do. They are giving $800,000 for a White Bear Augmentation design and study even though it is already part of a $2,500,000.00 study by the Met council. Here is a link to an article http://www.presspubs.com/white_bear/news/article_bd4c8c32-c500-11e3-88ec-0019bb2963f4.html

Again a "White Bear Augmentation Only" ignores the area wide aquifer problem and is an expensive, quick, possibly risky fix for an area wide problem.

[OnAFly]

It's easier to just throw some cash at it so they can say they did something when it all fails miserably.

Politicians are nothing but spineless !diots and have no value in society.

[mallardnwalleye]

It's easier to just throw some cash at it so they can say they did something when it all fails miserably.

Politicians are nothing but spineless !diots and have no value in society.

I wouldn't go that far. Sometimes they only hear part of a story or are strongly influenced by a loud and well moneyed specific interest. If they hear from you they will change as the bill was reduced to $800,000 from a blank check. You can contact your state rep as the bill passed in the senate but hasn't in the house. I think your rep in Centerville is Linda [email protected].

[mallardnwalleye]

Here is another article for those interested.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/ground-level/20...-lake-solution/

[jentz]

Its a local problem created locally.Restrict water usage for those who have created that problem.If the local people want to fix their own problem,well then just do it! dont charge the residents of anyother area!! just that watershed.Others didnt have anything to do with a over populated lake wanting to use water till its gone.It is a local problem not the states.They made their bed now sleep in it!

[Tom7227]

This bill is evidence that the pork system is at work in Minnesota. But I am curious to know if the fact that the Senate passed it because the power structure knew that it had little chance in the House. It make Sen. Wiger look good to some of his constituents. But since it hasn't passed in the House no dough is going to flow.

As for making the people in the watershed be the only ones that pay for the augmentation it should be noted that they aren't the only ones who seem to be responsible for creating the problem. The problem is excessive depletion of groundwater from all that has been determined so far. The groundwater depletion is being done by cities from Forest Lake to the Mississippi River, and quite a ways east and west. The lawsuit by lake owners argues that the DNR has failed to do their job and has allowed too many wells to be drilled into the aquifer.

So making those within the watershed pay doesn't really place the responsibility on all that created the problem.

I agree that we all should not have to pay to pump water into a bathtub that has the plug pulled. I don't think that augmentation is the answer at all.

But it is a complex problem. If you want to see just part of what is going on with water out here look at the following. I suspect that you'll be scratching your head before you get very far into it.

http://www.ricecreek.org/vertical/Sites/%7BF68A5205-A996-4208-96B5-2C7263C03AA9%7D/uploads/%7B3A2BA357-1C6E-4B29-9E0D-4B51E999EC13%7D.PDF

[BoxMN]

Its a local problem created locally.

Others didnt have anything to do with a over populated lake wanting to use water till its gone.It is a local problem not the states.They made their bed now sleep in it!

Wow... I see we have been following the story... Or maybe I missed the sarcasm...

[pinkfloyd4ever]

Well it looks like the State didn't give the White Bear Lake (Only)Augmentation a unspecified dollar amount as it was going to do. They are giving $800,000 for a White Bear Augmentation design and study even though it is already part of a $2,500,000.00 study by the Met council. Here is a link to an article http://www.presspubs.com/white_bear/news/article_bd4c8c32-c500-11e3-88ec-0019bb2963f4.html

Again a "White Bear Augmentation Only" ignores the area wide aquifer problem and is an expensive, quick, possibly risky fix for an area wide problem.

How many studies have been done? Seems like this is just another $ waste funding a study.

[mallardnwalleye]

Here is a link to an opinion article that was in a local paper. http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_25594921/minnesota-working-water-white-bear-lake-pioneer-press

Here are some quotes from the article: Sen. Wiger quoted

Quote:

Advocates "aren't saying augmentation is a prescription," he said. "They are saying, 'Let's get the facts.' "

The bill said augmentation was a prescription-

1.1A bill for an act

1.2relating to capital investment; appropriating money for a lake water augmentation

1.3system for White Bear Lake; authorizing the sale and issuance of state bonds.

1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5 Section 1. WHITE BEAR LAKE WATER AUGMENTATION SYSTEM.

1.6 Subdivision 1. Appropriation. $....... is appropriated from the bond proceeds

1.7fund to the Metropolitan Council to predesign, design, construct, and equip a lake water

1.8augmentation system for White Bear Lake.

What's needed, Wiger believes, is a clear, objective analysis of whether augmentation is feasible. "We need to know with certainty," he said, before decisions are made on other options.

Here is another quote from the opinion piece-

Quote:

The request is "not duplicative" of other efforts, said Michael Balaen of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, an advocate of the measure. "The appropriation will allow us to build on work being done so we can further understand the feasibility of augmenting White Bear Lake."

Since when does a St. Paul Chamber of Commerce member know what is "not duplicative". I don't think he is a part of the current ongoing study the Met Council and hydrologists are doing. I believe that they DO have augmentation as a part of a couple different options in their study.

Guys, maybe augmentation is an option without risk but I think I would want that to come out of the hydrologists mouth after the current ongoing study is done not out of an engineering firm, a chamber of commerce member or a politicians mouth before a study by scientists is complete.

Well, I floated my thoughts above, Please let us know the depths of yours below.