Loading...
4.1. ERMUSR 06-14-2011Elk River ---~ Municipal Utilities 13069 Orono Parkway • P.U. Box 430 Elk River, MN 55330-0430 UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING Phone: 763.441.2020 Pax: 763-441.5099 TO: FROM: Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission David Berg -Water Superintendent John Dietz -Chair Troy Adams, P.E. -Director of Operations Daryl Thompson -Vice Chair A] Nadeau -Trustee MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: June l4, 2011 4.1 SUBJECT: Review of City Ordinance 78-51 WATER USE RESTRICTIONS and Elk River Municipal Utilities' 2009 RESOLUTION IMPOSING WATER USE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. BACKGROUND: In July 2009, as authorized under City Ordinance Section 78-51, the Utilities Commission adopted a resolution imposing water use restrictions. This resolution imposes water use restrictions at any location within the City of Elk River. The motion to approve this resolution was carried by a 3-0 vote. The scope of City Ordinance Section 78-51 WATER USE RESTRICTIONS was reviewed by the Utilities Commission in September 2010. It was then proposed to the City Council in October 2010 to amend the scope of geographical area subject to water use restrictions to specify all of the City of Elk River. This would have strengthened the ordinance by reinforcing the specifics of the Utilities' 2009 resolution. The Council did not to make any changes to the ordinance at that time. At the December 2010 Utilities Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to bring back for review the water use restriction resolution that had been adopted in 2009. At the February 2011 Utilities Commission meeting the Commission tabled this topic. DISCUSSION: The attached 2009 RESOLUTION IMPOSING WATER USE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ELK RIVER did not require an amendment to the ordinance and is permanent until revoked or amended by Utilities Commission resolution. The Utilities had water restrictions in place prior to the adoption of this resolution. However, the adoption of this resolution enabled the enforcement of these water restrictions through Ordinance 78-52 PENALTIES. City ordinances 78-51 and 78-52 are attached for Commission reference. 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. These types of proactive water conservation methods also become important when the need comes to increase our water use appropriations from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). As you may recall, in September 2006, ERMU submitted to the DNR a Conservation and Emergency Management Plan for Elk River Municipal Utilities Water System. This was an important step in the DNR amending our water use permit increasing our water use appropriations. Attached for reference is the letter from the DNR approving the requested increase in water use appropriations. The bottom line is that imposing water use restrictions on those with private wells will not directly help to mitigate the usage volatility associated with the whole water distribution system. It does communicate a uniform signal to conserve. Imposing the current water use restrictions may not be in line with the thoughts of the City Council. However, it is reasonable to say that the City Council is not as familiar with the specifics to this issue as the Utilities Commission is. The City Council has not had the opportunity to become informed on the specifics of the preservation of this natural resource as the Utilities Commission has. In addition, it may not be received well by the public to be regulated by the government for something they own because it is deemed important for the greater good for the City of Elk River. However, that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do. Allowing those with private wells to be exempt from the water use restrictions creates some identification enforcement issues for the water department related to those who are sprinkling with city water. Also, allowing single buildable lots to have a well For sprinkling creates a concern for recording their existence in accordance with our wellhead protection program. The Utilities may need to create an application for these single buildable lots adding a private well for sprinkling so the water department can record those locations for the wellhead protection program. The Water Superintendent has had discussion with the City of Rogers about this concern. The City of Rogers requires a permit for those single buildable lot private wells. There should also be discussion of who and how will they be inspected. The answer falls somewhere between over regulation by the government and unregulated misuse of a natural resource. Currently the Utilities compromises by allowing a residential customer on a single buildable lot to have a private well for sprinkling but they would be required to follow the uniform water use restrictions. If this compromise no longer works, the Commission could consider revising the 2009 resolution such that it does not extend the water use restrictions to those with private wells or does not extend the water use restriction to those outside of the water service area. Or, the Utilities Commission could exempt private wells from the water use restrictions entirely. RESOLUTION #09- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES A Resolution Imposing Water Use Restrictions Within the City of Elk River WHEREAS, Section 78-51 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances authorizes the Board of Commissioners of the Elk River Municipal Utilities to invoke water use restrictions to ensure adequate water supplies to meet the health, safety and welfare needs of the City of Elk River and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined it necessary to impose permanent restrictions on lawn sprinkling in order to ensure adequate water supplies to meet the health, safety and welfare needs of the City of Elk River and its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. Pursuant to its authority under Section 78-51 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances, the Board of Commissioners hereby adopts the following water use restrictions: a. No lawn sprinkling shall be allowed on any day at any location within the City of Elk River between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. b. Lawn sprinkling before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. will be allowed on properties with even numbered addresses on the even numbered days of the month, and on properties with odd numbered addresses on the odd numbered days of the month. 2. These restrictions shall remain in effect permanently, unless and until revoked or amended by resolution of the Board of Commissioners. 3. These restrictions shall take effect immediately upon adoption of this Resolution, as provided in Section 78-51 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances. 4. Penalties for violation of these water use restrictions shall be as set forth in Section 78-52 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances. Adopted this 14'h day of July, 2009. John Dietz, Chair Board of Commissioners Elk River Municipal Utilities GP:2612429 vl THE CITY OF ELK RIVER -CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 78 UTILITIES ARTICLE II. WATER SYSTEM DIVISION 5 RESTRICTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT SEC. 78-51. WATER USE RESTRICTIONS. The public utility commission of the city is hereby authorized to invoke water use restrictions in cases of emergency to ensure adequate water supplies to meet the health, safety, and welfare needs of the city and its residents. Such water use restrictions shall be invoked by resolution of the public utility commission, and shall take effect immediately upon adoption of such resolution. The public utility commission may designate its general manager or water superintendent authority to impose temporary water use restriction until the commission can meet to consider a resolution. The penalties imposed below in section 78-52 may be invoked upon publication of the resolution imposing restrictions. SEC.78-52. PENALTIES. The first violation of the restrictions contained in this article shall subject the offending person, firm, corporation or association to a written warning. A second violation of the restrictions shall be a petty misdemeanor with a penalty of $50.00 and shall increase to the sum of $100.00 for the third violation. A fourth violation shall result in water shut-off with the reconnection fee to be paid by the offending property owner according to the policies of the public utilities commission. No penalty can be imposed unless a person had, or should have had, prior knowledge of the ordinance restrictions. This may be shown by the fact that prior warning was delivered to the person or to an occupant of the premises to be assessed.