Minnesota Protect Our Water

Minnesota Water Resources: Potential Mining and Drought Outcomes

Minnesota Protect Our Water and Environment


Potential Disastrous Outcomes for MN Farming 

Karst, Prairie Du Chien, and Jordan Aquifers ~ Part of the Upper Mississippi River Waterways

A new limestone mine proposed for Waterford Township will negatively change the environment, health, and quality of life of residents in the immediate area and surrounding areas.

In 2001, Waterford Township recognized the threats posed by mining and adopted a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance designed to protect the community from the harmful impacts of mineral extraction.

These protections were rolled back in 2019, however, through amendments that broadly authorized mineral extraction throughout most of the township ~ including projects that operate below the water table, requiring constant and massive dewatering as long as the mine is in operation.

The proposed quarry would consume 223+ acres of prime agricultural farmland in Waterford Township. Operations would include topsoil and overburden removal, dewatering, drilling, blasting, processing, loading, hauling, and reclamation. The dewatering depth will be up to 145 feet and is expected to be active for 50 years.

They are requesting a Mineral Extraction Permit to operate a limestone mining and processing facility in the middle of Waterford Township. This quarry operation includes removing topsoil, DRILLING, BLASTING, DEWATERING !!, extraction, processing, stockpiling, hauling, loading, and reclamation. The site access will be Arkansas Ave, and the haul route will be north to CR 86, to Hwy 3 and CR 47. The cities of Northfield, Hampton, Farmington, Lakeville, Cannon Falls, and Randolph ALL will be affected by up to 200 truck trips per day.

This proposed mine will disrupt groundwater flow, leading to dry wells and polluted streams that feed the Cannon River. This not only harms aquatic life but also threatens the water security of nearby communities and townships. Dust from blasting and crushing carries harmful particles, impacting air quality and respiratory health, especially for those living near the quarry.

They plan on dewatering 1.3 – 4 billion gallons a year. The Karst, Prairie Du Chien, and Jordan aquifers are anticipated to be impacted. These aquifers are primarily replenished by rainfall and snowfall, as the majority of Minnesota’s groundwater flows out of the state. Minnesota This is in the middle of some of the best family-owned farmlands around.

A test run for the Niagara Bottling just miles west of the proposed mine, in the Prairie Du Chien and Jordan aquifers, led over 22 rural residents and farmers of Elko/New Market to complain about changes to their well water; it was only a test run. Niagara Bottling is building a water plant and has received approval to use 310 million gallons annually. Additionally, a metadata storage facility center has been authorized to utilize 165 – 300 million gallons of water in Rosemount, situated just north of the proposed mining site. Other projects are in the works that hope to tap into our aquifers as well.

Wetlands in close proximity to the proposed limestone quarry will be negatively impacted. In a recently issued Water Management Report by the Dakota County Water Resources Department, distributing or recharging water to wetlands located over karst bedrock formations (found throughout the surrounding region) may cause sinkhole formations.

We strive to be good stewards in our area and a few companies threaten to destroy everything around it and in its path. These companies are planning to expand, that’s what growing companies do. They will not stop at what they are proposing right now. They will cease operations only when there is no longer any potential for profit.

We care deeply about our aquifers and the local streams and rivers connected to them. Cannon River takes a short journey through our river valleys and then flows into the Mississippi River. An ecological mining disaster is expected to impact the Mississippi River, with potential consequences extending to the ocean. Most of Minnesota’s water flows outward, with aquifers replenished by rainwater and snowmelt. We are about 3 hours south from the Mississippi River headwaters. We must take great care of how we treat our water; we are not the only ones who depend on our clean, fresh water.

Protect Waterford Township MN From Harmful Impacts Of Mineral Extraction.


Executive Summary:

The Impact of Industrial Water Usage on Minnesota’s Water Resources: A Focus on the Northfield Area

This report examines the potential impact of a proposed limestone mine in Waterford Township near Northfield, Minnesota, alongside the water consumption of other significant industrial users within the state, namely Niagara Bottling Company and data centers. A central concern is how these large-scale water demands may affect Minnesota’s water resources, particularly in the context of current drought conditions. The analysis reveals that the proposed limestone mine is projected to drain a substantial amount of groundwater daily for an extended period, a level of consumption comparable to other major industrial operations in the state. This significant water withdrawal has the potential to negatively impact local water sources, including wells, rivers, and wetlands, and could exacerbate existing water stress, especially during periods of drought. Careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of industrial water usage is essential to safeguard Minnesota’s water resources for the benefit of current and future generations.

II. The Proposed Limestone Mine and Its Water Demands:

  • A. Identification of the Specific Mine:
    The focus of concern is a proposed limestone quarry located near Northfield, Minnesota. Specifically, this is the Waterford Township Limestone Quarry, a project put forth by Bryan Rock Products, Inc1.. The proposed site for this quarry is situated in Dakota County, near Northfield, in Waterford Township. This location places it within a specific hydrological context, making the identification of potentially affected water bodies and aquifers critical. The scale of the project is significant, encompassing over 300 acres of land that was previously used for farming 3. This conversion from agricultural land to industrial use has implications not only for water resources but also for local ecosystems and land management. The proposal for this development has been under consideration by the local board, with a meeting held on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, to discuss the matter 2. While this meeting date has passed, it indicates the timeline of the project’s progression and the ongoing engagement of local authorities with the proposal.
  • B. Proposed De-watering Plans and Estimated Water Usage:
    A primary concern surrounding the proposed limestone quarry is the projected volume of groundwater that will need to be drained for its operation. Estimates suggest that the quarry will require the drainage of approximately 10 million gallons of groundwater every day 1. This daily withdrawal is anticipated to continue for the entire operational lifespan of the mine, which is projected to be 50 years 3. The purpose of this extensive dewatering is to facilitate various quarry operations, including the extraction of limestone, its processing through crushing, washing, and screening, as well as stockpiling, loading, hauling, and eventual site reclamation 2. Understanding these operational needs helps to explain the necessity for such a large and sustained water removal. However, a significant challenge in fully assessing the potential environmental impacts is the lack of a publicly available detailed dewatering plan 2. The absence of this crucial information hinders a comprehensive evaluation of the specific methods and potential consequences of the proposed water extraction. The sheer magnitude of the projected daily water drainage, coupled with its long duration, raises substantial questions about the long-term sustainability of the local groundwater resources and the potential for significant regional aquifer depletion.
  • C. Local Community Concerns and Opposition:
    The proposal for the Waterford Township Limestone Quarry has generated considerable opposition from the local community. Citizens of Waterford Township have voiced strong concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the mine on their drinking water supplies, nearby wetlands, and local air quality 3. This intense opposition reflects a deep-seated apprehension about the environmental and health consequences of the proposed development. This situation can be contrasted with the recent approval of a gravel mine in Rice County, near Nerstrand Big Woods State Park, despite similar environmental concerns raised by residents 4. In the Rice County case, the Rice County Board voted to issue a gravel mine permit despite worries about the impact on groundwater, Prairie Creek, and local wildlife 4. Residents in Rice County also expressed frustration over the county’s denial of their request for an environmental assessment, even after more than 100 residents petitioned the state for such a review 4. The parallels between the concerns in Waterford Township and those expressed in Rice County suggest a broader pattern of community apprehension regarding the potential adverse effects of mining operations on local ecosystems and water resources in the region. The experience in Rice County, where a permit was approved despite these concerns and without a comprehensive environmental assessment, underscores the potential challenges faced by those opposing the Waterford quarry and highlights the importance of a thorough and transparent review process.

III. Potential Environmental Impacts on Northfield Area Water Resources:

  • A. Impact on Local Groundwater Levels and Aquifers:
    The process of dewatering a limestone quarry necessitates the removal of substantial quantities of groundwater, which can lead to a significant lowering of the local water table 5. Research conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on the hydraulic impacts of quarries confirms that these operations can act as “huge wells,” effectively drawing down the water levels within the surrounding aquifer 5. Beyond the immediate act of pumping, the physical removal of limestone can also disrupt the underground geological structures that are vital for containing and channeling groundwater 7. This disruption can alter the natural flow patterns and potentially reduce the overall capacity of the aquifer to store water. A significant concern arising from this potential drawdown is the risk it poses to nearby private wells 8. During periods of drought, when groundwater recharge is limited, heavy pumping for quarry dewatering can exacerbate the decline in water levels, potentially causing wells in the vicinity to run dry 8. The case of the Osmundson quarry in Minnesota, where seasonal dewatering caused a nearby spring to cease flowing 9, serves as a stark reminder of the direct and significant impact that quarry operations can have on groundwater-dependent water sources. The continuous extraction of 10 million gallons of groundwater per day for the proposed Waterford quarry has the potential to create a similar, if not more severe, drawdown effect on the local aquifer, with potentially long-lasting consequences for both the availability of groundwater and the integrity of the aquifer system itself.
  • B. Impact on Rivers and Wetlands:
    Groundwater and surface water resources are intrinsically linked, forming a complex and interconnected hydrological system 10. Groundwater often plays a crucial role in sustaining the water levels of rivers, lakes, and wetlands, particularly during dry periods when surface runoff is reduced 10. This baseflow contribution from groundwater is essential for maintaining aquatic habitats and overall ecosystem health. When large-scale groundwater withdrawal occurs, as proposed for the Waterford quarry, it can intercept the natural flow of groundwater that would otherwise discharge into these surface water bodies 10. This capture of groundwater can lead to a decrease in streamflow and lower water levels in lakes and wetlands, potentially harming aquatic life and reducing the overall biodiversity of these ecosystems. Furthermore, limestone mining activities near groundwater sources can increase the amount of sediment in the water supply 7. This increased sedimentation can negatively impact water quality, affecting both aquatic organisms and the suitability of the water for other uses. The concerns raised by residents regarding the Milestone Materials gravel mine in Rice County, specifically the potential impact on Prairie Creek 4, illustrate the local relevance of these potential surface water impacts from aggregate mining operations in the region surrounding Northfield. The significant depletion of the aquifer due to the Waterford quarry’s dewatering could therefore have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only groundwater availability but also the health and vitality of the surface water resources that depend on it.
  • C. Case Studies from Minnesota:
    Minnesota has documented instances where limestone quarrying has had significant impacts on local water resources. The case of the Osmundson quarry, located in LeRoy, Minnesota, provides a clear example of the potential consequences of quarry dewatering 5. This quarry, which operates below the water table, requires seasonal dewatering at a rate of 1,000 to 3,000 liters per minute. Notably, when the quarry is being dewatered, Sweets Spring, situated approximately 300 meters to the southeast, completely stops flowing 9. Dye tracing investigations have confirmed that the dewatering activities at the Osmundson quarry directly intercept and “pirate” the groundwater flow that normally sustains Sweets Spring 9. This case demonstrates a direct and quantifiable link between quarry operations and the loss of a natural spring. Another significant case involves the Big Spring quarry near Harmony, Minnesota 5. Quarrying operations at this site, which began in the early 1960s, disrupted the underground conduits that carried groundwater to Big Spring, the headwaters of Camp Creek, a designated trout stream 9. As a result of this disruption, the flow from Big Spring decreased, and approximately 90% of the spring’s mapped groundwater basin is now routed through the quarry 5. Furthermore, temperature measurements taken at Big Spring and the water emerging in the quarry revealed significant increases in water temperature downstream of the quarry, with the stream flowing from the quarry to Camp Creek being as much as 17 degrees Fahrenheit warmer 5. Such temperature changes can have severe negative impacts on cold-water fish populations like trout. More broadly, research on the hydraulic impacts of quarries in southeastern Minnesota has found that quarry dewatering consistently alters local groundwater hydrology, with quarries functioning as large-scale drains that lower the water table in the surrounding aquifers 5. These Minnesota-specific case studies provide compelling evidence of the potential for limestone quarry dewatering to cause significant and detrimental impacts on local springs, streams, and overall groundwater availability, highlighting the risks associated with the proposed Waterford Township quarry.

IV. Water Consumption by Other Major Industries in Minnesota:

  • A. Niagara Bottling Company’s Water Usage:
    In addition to the proposed limestone mine, other large industrial users in Minnesota also place significant demands on the state’s water resources. One notable example is Niagara Bottling Company, which has plans to establish a major bottling plant in Elko New Market, a city located south of the Twin Cities metropolitan area 13. The initial phase of this project is projected to require approximately 155 million gallons of water per year 16. Upon further expansion, the facility’s annual water withdrawal is expected to increase to around 310 million gallons 13. To accommodate this substantial water demand, along with anticipated community growth, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has authorized the city of Elko New Market to increase its permitted annual groundwater pumping from 135 million gallons to 365 million gallons 14. This increase of 230 million gallons per year is primarily intended to supply the Niagara Bottling facility. This level of water usage by Niagara Bottling would more than triple the total public water use in Elko New Market, which previously drew 125 million gallons in a year 13. Similar to the opposition to the proposed mine, local residents in Elko New Market have also voiced concerns about the potential depletion of the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer, the source of their drinking water, due to Niagara’s large water withdrawals 13. The DNR’s approval of the increased pumping permit requires Elko New Market to develop a plan to investigate and address any well interference or water quality issues that may arise as a result of the increased water usage 15. This condition acknowledges the potential for negative impacts on nearby private well owners. The case of Niagara Bottling illustrates the significant water demands of the beverage industry and highlights the challenges communities face when large water-intensive businesses seek to operate in their vicinity.
  • B. Water Demands of Data Centers in Minnesota:
    Another rapidly growing sector with substantial water demands in Minnesota is the data center industry. The increasing reliance on cloud computing and the proliferation of artificial intelligence have led to a surge in the development of mega-scale data centers across the state 22. These facilities, which house vast arrays of computer equipment, require significant amounts of water for cooling to prevent overheating and ensure operational efficiency 23. Estimates suggest that a single large data center can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day 23, a volume equivalent to the water usage of thousands of homes or an entire city 24. One particularly large data center proposed in Farmington, Minnesota, is estimated to require 900 million gallons of water per year, effectively doubling the water consumption of the entire city 25. Minnesota is home to a growing number of data centers, located in various cities including Minneapolis, Chaska, Shakopee, Eden Prairie, St. Paul, and Duluth, with major companies like US Signal, Flexential, Stream Data Centers, T5 Data Centers, Centersquare, DataBank, Lumen, Cologix, and H5 Data Centers operating facilities 22. Furthermore, several mega data centers are planned or under construction in areas like Rosemount (Meta, Tract), Becker (Amazon, Microsoft), and Farmington (Tract) 22. A regulatory concern is that some data centers obtain their water directly from municipal water systems, potentially bypassing the need for a state water use permit from the DNR 24. Given their immense power requirements, there are also concerns that the growth of data centers in Minnesota could prolong the reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation, potentially hindering the state’s goal of achieving a carbon-free grid by 2040 22. The increasing number and size of data centers in Minnesota represent a significant and growing demand on the state’s water resources, adding to the cumulative pressure from other industrial sectors.

V. Minnesota’s Current Drought Situation:

  • A. Drought Conditions in Minnesota:
    Minnesota has been experiencing significant drought conditions in recent years, with each year since 2021 marked by notable dryness 33. The U.S. Drought Monitor, a collaborative effort of federal agencies, provides a weekly assessment of drought conditions across the country 33. As of December 5, 2024, the drought monitor indicated that 37% of Minnesota was abnormally dry (D0), 48% was in moderate drought (D1), and 19% was in severe drought (D2) 33. Drought conditions in the state persisted through the winter of 2023-2024 due to below-average snowfall and unusually warm temperatures. While spring rains in 2024 offered some relief, drought conditions returned in the fall of 2024 following near-record warm temperatures and limited rainfall in September and October 33. At one point, eight river basins in Minnesota were under a Drought Watch advisory, signaling widespread concerns about low water levels 33. This ongoing pattern of drought underscores the vulnerability of Minnesota’s water resources and highlights the potential for increased stress from additional large-scale water withdrawals.
  • B. Drought Severity and Water Availability in the Northfield/Rice County Region:
    Focusing specifically on the region around Northfield, Rice County has also been experiencing significant drought conditions 34. As of March 25, 2025, data from the U.S. Drought Monitor showed that 66.4% of Minnesota was experiencing drought conditions ranging from moderate to severe (D1-D2), with 28.5% classified as abnormally dry (D0), 57.7% in moderate drought (D1), and 8.8% in severe drought (D2) 34. In Rice County, 33.3% of the population was reported to be affected by drought 39. Precipitation data for early 2025 reveals particularly dry conditions in the county. February 2025 was recorded as the 20th driest February in the past 131 years, with a precipitation deficit of 0.45 inches below normal 39. Furthermore, the period from January to February 2025 was the 2nd driest year to date on record for Rice County over the last 131 years, with a total precipitation deficit of 1.23 inches below the historical average 39. These statistics clearly indicate that Rice County is currently facing substantial water stress due to prolonged dry conditions. In this context of existing drought and low precipitation, any additional large-scale water withdrawals, such as the 10 million gallons per day proposed for the Waterford Township Limestone Quarry, could significantly exacerbate the local water scarcity and potentially lead to more severe environmental and community impacts.

VI. Regulatory Framework for Water Withdrawal in Minnesota:

  • A. Regulations Governing Water Withdrawal and De-watering:
    The management of water resources in Minnesota is primarily overseen by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 10. To ensure the sustainable use of the state’s water, the DNR requires a water appropriation permit for any water user withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons of water per year 10. This regulation applies to both surface water and groundwater withdrawals. The DNR’s mandate is to manage water resources to guarantee an adequate supply for a wide range of needs, including domestic use, agriculture, fish and wildlife, recreation, power generation, navigation, and water quality control 43. For activities related to mining, including the proposed limestone quarry, the authority to manage water permits is delegated to the Lands and Minerals Division of the DNR 41. The specific requirements and conditions for obtaining water appropriation permits and for any alterations to public waters related to mining are detailed in Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115 41. Entities seeking a new water appropriation permit or an amendment to an existing permit for mining operations are required to apply through the MNDNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) 41. These permits may include stipulations for environmental monitoring to assess the impacts of the permitted water appropriations, as well as requirements for the permittee to submit annual reports on their water usage 10. Given the proposed Waterford Township Limestone Quarry’s projected daily groundwater drainage of 10 million gallons, it will undoubtedly be subject to these water appropriation permit requirements. Understanding the specific conditions and potential limitations of this permit will be crucial in evaluating the project’s potential impact on local water resources.
  • B. Environmental Review Process for Mining Projects:
    All mining projects in Minnesota are subject to a comprehensive environmental review process, which involves obtaining various air and water permits from both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the DNR 45. This process, which begins after a formal project proposal is submitted to state and federal agencies, can often take several years to complete 45. The environmental review has two primary objectives: to thoroughly consider the potential impacts of the project on both human health and the environment, and to actively engage stakeholders and the public in the assessment of these impacts 45. As part of this review, a scientific assessment is conducted by subject matter specialists with expertise in areas such as wetlands, habitat, cultural resources, economics, and air quality. For projects with the potential for significant environmental effects, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is typically prepared 45. The MPCA plays a role in the environmental review, with the DNR often serving as the responsible governmental unit overseeing the process 45. Importantly, no permits or approvals for a project can be finalized until the environmental review process is complete 46. The public is afforded multiple opportunities to provide input and comments throughout the review and permitting stages 45. In the case of the Waterford Township Limestone Quarry, the project is currently undergoing environmental review, as evidenced by the issuance of an EIS Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision on August 22, 2023, and an EIS preparation notice on December 26, 2023 2. This ongoing review process is a critical step in evaluating the potential environmental consequences of the proposed mine, including its impact on water resources, and provides an opportunity for public scrutiny and input.

VII. The Interconnection of Industrial Water Use and Drought:

  • A. Scientific Evidence Linking Water Consumption to Drought:
    The scientific understanding of hydrology emphasizes that the careful management of water use is a fundamental aspect of ensuring the long-term sustainability of water resources 10. This is particularly critical during periods of drought, when the natural availability of water is reduced, and the demand for water often increases 10. In such conditions, large-scale water withdrawals by industrial users can have significant consequences. For instance, heavy pumping of groundwater can lead to a substantial decline in groundwater levels, increasing the risk that nearby wells, particularly shallow ones, may run dry 8. This risk is amplified during droughts because the natural recharge of groundwater is limited. Furthermore, the excessive use of groundwater can negatively affect the quality of surface water and can lower the overall water levels in the ground, impacting surface water bodies such as rivers and lakes 11. Groundwater often sustains the flow of these surface waters, especially during dry weather, and its depletion can have detrimental effects on aquatic ecosystems 10. In interconnected groundwater and surface water systems, the extraction of groundwater can intercept flows that would otherwise replenish surface waters, leading to reduced streamflow and lower lake levels 10. When a significant imbalance occurs in the hydrological cycle, such as during a severe drought, the reserves of soil moisture and groundwater, as well as the levels of lakes and the flow of streams, are all negatively impacted, affecting industries that rely on water 33. Therefore, scientific evidence clearly indicates that substantial industrial water consumption, especially through groundwater withdrawal, can directly contribute to and exacerbate drought conditions by depleting water sources and disrupting the natural hydrological balance.
  • B. Cumulative Impact of Industrial Water Use:
    The increasing demand for water from various industrial sectors, including the rapid expansion of data centers and the ongoing needs of other large users, places a growing strain on Minnesota’s groundwater resources, particularly in the context of a changing climate 27. The combined effect of multiple large water users drawing from the same aquifers can lead to localized and regional depletion of groundwater levels, sometimes creating what are known as “cones of depression” 24. This is especially concerning in areas that already rely heavily on groundwater for their water supply. While Minnesota has begun to address the cumulative impacts of pollution through regulations, the current focus is primarily on air permits in environmental justice areas 49. However, the underlying principle of considering the combined effects of multiple environmental stressors is highly relevant to water resource management as well. The total water footprint of all large industrial users in a region, including the proposed limestone mine, Niagara Bottling, and data centers, can have a significant cumulative impact on the overall water security of the state, particularly during periods of drought. Even if individual water withdrawals are permitted based on certain criteria, their combined effect on aquifers and surface water flows can lead to regional water stress and potential conflicts over the allocation of this vital resource. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impacts of industrial water use is essential for effective water resource management and for ensuring the long-term sustainability of Minnesota’s water supply.

VIII. Fact List:

  • Proposed Waterford Township Limestone Quarry (Bryan Rock):
  • Projected daily groundwater drainage: 10 million gallons 1.
  • Projected operational lifespan: 50 years 3.
  • Niagara Bottling (Elko New Market):
  • Permitted annual groundwater withdrawal: 365 million gallons 14.
  • Planned eventual annual withdrawal: 310 million gallons 13.
  • Data Centers in Minnesota:
  • Potential daily water consumption of a single large data center: up to 5 million gallons 23.
  • Estimated annual water consumption of a proposed data center in Farmington: 900 million gallons 25.
  • Number of data centers operating in Minnesota: Over 30 22.
  • Minnesota Drought Conditions (as of March 25, 2025):
  • 66.4% of Minnesota experiencing moderate to severe drought (D1-D2) 34.
  • Rice County: 33.3% of people affected by drought 39; early 2025 was exceptionally dry 39.
  • Regulatory Trigger for Water Appropriation Permit in Minnesota:
  • Withdrawal of more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year 10.

Table 1: Key Water Consumption Figures

EntityType of UseEstimated/Permitted Water UsageTimeframeSource(s)
Bryan Rock (Proposed Waterford Quarry)Dewatering10 million gallons per day50 years1
Niagara Bottling (Elko New Market)Bottling365 million gallons per yearPermitted14
Niagara Bottling (Elko New Market)Bottling310 million gallons per yearPlanned13
Large Data Center (Minnesota Estimate)CoolingUp to 5 million gallons per dayOngoing23
Farmington Data Center (Proposed)Cooling900 million gallons per yearProposed25

IX. Talking Points:

  • The proposed limestone mine in Waterford Township is projected to drain 10 million gallons of groundwater every single day for the next 50 years 1. This massive, sustained withdrawal poses a significant threat to our local aquifer, a vital source of water for our community. It’s crucial to consider the long-term implications of such a substantial depletion of our precious groundwater resources.
  • Our region, like much of Minnesota, is currently experiencing drought conditions, with early 2025 being exceptionally dry in Rice County 34. Allowing a water-intensive operation like this mine will only worsen the existing water scarcity, potentially leading to dry wells for homeowners and harming our local rivers and wetlands that are already under stress from the lack of precipitation.
  • We have seen the negative consequences of limestone quarry dewatering in other parts of Minnesota. Case studies like the Osmundson quarry, where a spring dried up due to dewatering, and the Big Spring quarry, where the flow to a trout stream was disrupted and water temperatures increased, serve as clear warnings 5. We must learn from these past experiences and prevent similar damage in our community.
  • While the proposed mine is a major concern, it’s important to remember that other industries in Minnesota, such as Niagara Bottling with its permitted 365 million gallons of annual water use in Elko New Market, and the growing number of water-intensive data centers, also place significant demands on our state’s water resources 14. We need to consider the cumulative impact of all these large water users on our state’s overall water security.
  • Protecting our water is not just about the environment; it’s about our economy, our health, and our way of life. Clean and abundant water is essential for agriculture, recreation, and the well-being of our communities. We have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that our water resources are managed sustainably.
  • We urge our elected officials and regulatory agencies to carefully and thoroughly evaluate the environmental risks associated with the proposed limestone mine. They must consider the strong opposition from our community and prioritize the long-term health of our water resources over any potential short-term economic benefits that this project might offer. The potential for irreversible harm to our water supply is too great to ignore.
  • There are more sustainable ways to operate mines and cool data centers that don’t involve such massive withdrawals of precious freshwater 53. We should be demanding that industries adopt these best practices, such as water recycling in mining operations and advanced, water-efficient cooling technologies in data centers, to minimize their impact on our limited water resources.

X. Protecting Minnesota’s Water Resources for the Future:

  • A. Alternative Water Management Practices:
    For limestone mining operations, while dewatering may be necessary in some cases, there are strategies to minimize water usage and mitigate potential impacts 53. These include carefully planning the extent and duration of dewatering activities, exploring options for water recycling within the mining process for tasks like dust suppression and aggregate washing, and implementing effective water treatment and discharge protocols to ensure that any released water meets stringent environmental quality standards 53. Proper reclamation of the mine site after its operational life is also crucial to minimize long-term impacts on surface water infiltration and erosion 53. Investigating the feasibility of these alternative practices during the environmental review process is essential.
    Data centers, which are significant water consumers for cooling purposes, have a variety of alternative cooling technologies available that can dramatically reduce their reliance on freshwater 54. Air cooling, while potentially more energy-intensive, eliminates the need for water 58. Liquid cooling systems, which circulate coolant directly to the heat-generating components, operate in closed loops and use significantly less water than traditional evaporative cooling 54. Immersion cooling, where servers are submerged in a dielectric fluid, offers highly efficient cooling with minimal water consumption 54. “Free cooling” systems utilize outside air when temperatures are low enough, reducing the need for mechanical cooling 54. Additionally, data centers can explore the use of non-potable water sources, such as harvested rainwater or treated wastewater, for their cooling needs, further conserving valuable drinking water supplies 54. Encouraging and incentivizing the adoption of these water-efficient cooling technologies is vital for the sustainable growth of the data center industry in Minnesota.
  • B. Importance of Protecting Minnesota’s Water Resources:
    Water is an indispensable resource for the state of Minnesota, underpinning our drinking water supplies, agricultural productivity, diverse ecosystems, recreational opportunities, and overall quality of life 61. Responsible management of water withdrawals is essential to ensure the continued availability of this vital resource for both human use and the health of our natural environment, not only for the present but also for future generations 10. The long-term impacts of industrial water use on Minnesota’s water security are particularly concerning in the face of a changing climate, which is predicted to bring more frequent and intense periods of drought and other extreme weather events 61. It is crucial to recognize and address the cumulative effects of multiple large water users on the state’s aquifers and surface water systems, as their combined demand can exceed the sustainable capacity of these resources 49. Protecting Minnesota’s abundant water resources is a shared responsibility that requires careful consideration of all potential impacts and a commitment to sustainable management practices to ensure the well-being of both current and future inhabitants of the state.

Works cited

  1. Representative Dennis Ozment Press Release – Minnesota House of Representatives, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.house.mn.gov/GOP/goppress/Ozment/0201groundwater.htm
  2. Waterford Township Limestone Quarry – EQB Monitor Search, accessed March 29, 2025, https://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/eqb-search/project-detail/256736?siId=256736-PROJ0000000001
  3. Team Update – Water & Wetlands – June 2024 – Sierra Club, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.sierraclub.org/minnesota/blog/2024/06/team-update-water-wetlands-june-2024
  4. Rice County approves gravel mine near Nerstrand Big Woods State …, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.startribune.com/rice-county-approves-gravel-mine-near-nerstrand-big-woods-state-park-despite-residents-environmental-concerns/600374794
  5. lccmr – final report, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/projects/2001/finals/2001_07a.pdf
  6. Hydraulic Impacts of Quarries and Gravel Pits – files, accessed March 29, 2025, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/hdraulic-impacts-of-quarries.pdf
  7. What You Didn’t Know About Limestone Mining and the Environment | YULEX®, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.yulex.com/post/what-you-didnt-know-about-limestone-mining-and-the-environment
  8. Drought Precautions for Private Water Wells – Minnesota Department of Health, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/wells/droughtpre.pdf
  9. Green, J., Pavlish, J., Leete, J., and Alexander, Jr., E. (2003) Quarrying Impacts on Groundwater Flow Paths. Sinkholes and the – Riptide Web, accessed March 29, 2025, https://sitesreservoirproject.riptideweb.com/references/REF23/Volume%201/Ch08_Ground_H2O/Green-et-al_20031.pdf
  10. Hydrology- Water Withdrawal – Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/whaf/about/scores/hydrology/waterwithdraw.html
  11. Groundwater quality | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/groundwater-quality
  12. Quarrying Impacts on Groundwater Flow Paths – University Digital Conservancy, accessed March 29, 2025, https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/964dbb37-b026-4e0d-8158-27452e00cf4a
  13. Bottled water plant planned for south metro would triple water usage – Star Tribune, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.startribune.com/bottled-water-plant-planned-for-south-metro-would-triple-water-usage/600235877
  14. DNR: Elko New Market can pump more groundwater to supply …, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/06/12/dnr-elko-new-market-can-pump-more-groundwater-to-supply-bottled-water-plant
  15. Elko New Market’s request to increase water use for bottling plant …, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.startribune.com/elko-new-markets-request-to-increase-water-use-for-bottling-plant-gets-dnrs-ok/600373154
  16. Hearing on controversial southern Minnesota water bottling plant will continue next week, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/12/17/hearing-on-controversial-southern-minnesota-water-bottling-plant-will-continue-next-week
  17. Elko New Market’s plan to tap aquifer for bottled water plant draws residents’ ire | MPR News, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/12/15/elko-new-markets-plan-to-tap-aquifer-for-bottled-water-plant-draws-residents-ire
  18. Save Our Water – First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, accessed March 29, 2025, https://firstunitarian.org/justice-updates/active-voices-updates/save-our-water/
  19. Public Forum on Water Bottling Plant Provides Flood of Facts -… – Volume One, accessed March 29, 2025, https://volumeone.org/articles/2022/06/08/297968-public-forum-on-water-bottling-plant-provides
  20. [UPDATE] Niagara Bottling Withdraws Plans for E.C. Plant – after… – Volume One, accessed March 29, 2025, https://volumeone.org/articles/2022/06/14/298282-residents-bend-councils-ears-over-water
  21. Why is Niagara opening bottled watered plant in Elko not being talked about more?? : r/minnesota – Reddit, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/12wcmdl/why_is_niagara_opening_bottled_watered_plant_in/
  22. Mega data centers are coming to Minnesota. Their power needs are staggering., accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.startribune.com/mega-data-centers-are-coming-to-minnesota-their-power-needs-are-staggering/601204129
  23. A threat to Minnesota’s water – Data Centers – Minnesota Senate, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.senate.mn/committees/2025-2026/3122_Committee_on_Energy_Utilities_Environment_and_Climate/Energy-20250312-SenateFile1393-CleanWaterAction.pdf
  24. Water-guzzling data centers spark worries for Minnesota’s groundwater | MPR News, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/02/11/water-guzzling-data-centers-spark-worries-for-minnesotas-groundwater
  25. Minnesota’s Digital Dilemma: examining the environmental costs of AI, data centers, and cryptocurrency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.mncenter.org/minnesotas-digital-dilemma-examining-environmental-costs-ai-data-centers-and-cryptocurrency
  26. DEAR MINNESOTA LEGISLATORS, OUR KEY CONCERNS ARE AS FOLLOWS:, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/ixrlE5jHoUG5AnIvHuTzhw.pdf
  27. Data Centers and Groundwater Usage | The Joyce Foundation, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.joycefdn.org/news/data-centers-and-groundwater-usage
  28. Minnesota Data Centers – Providers Map in Minnesota, United States, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.datacenters.com/locations/united-states/minnesota
  29. Minneapolis Center – Minnesota Data Center – H5 Data Centers, accessed March 29, 2025, https://h5datacenters.com/minneapolis-data-center.html
  30. Minneapolis Data Centers Locations (37), accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.datacenters.com/locations/united-states/minnesota/minneapolis
  31. Minneapolis Data Centers: Empowering Connectivity and Business Agility – DataBank, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.databank.com/data-centers/minneapolis/
  32. Minneapolis Data Center – Stack41, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.stack41.com/data-centers/minneapolis/
  33. Drought in Minnesota, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/drought/index.html
  34. Minnesota | Drought.gov, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.drought.gov/states/minnesota
  35. Minnesota – | U.S. Drought Monitor, accessed March 29, 2025, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?MN
  36. Drought Conditions Overview – Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/journal/drought_monitor.html
  37. Current Map | U.S. Drought Monitor, accessed March 29, 2025, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
  38. Current Drought Conditions for Minnesota featuring an Interactive Map – March 11, 2025, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-minnesota-drought-monitor-map.php
  39. Rice County Conditions – Drought.gov, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.drought.gov/states/minnesota/county/rice
  40. 55057 Conditions | Drought.gov, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.drought.gov/location/55057
  41. Waters program | Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/waters_program/index.html
  42. DNR Water Permits – Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/permits/water/index.html
  43. Water Appropriation Permit Program – Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/index.html
  44. Water use permits | Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/permits.html
  45. Mining permits | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/mining-permits
  46. Environmental review | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/environmental-review
  47. About | Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-review/about
  48. Environmental Review – Permitting – Minnesota DNR, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/permitting.html
  49. Cumulative impacts | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/cumulative-impacts
  50. Cumulative impacts rulemaking | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.pca.state.mn.us/get-engaged/cumulative-impacts-rulemaking
  51. Breaking down Minnesota’s cumulative impacts law – Environmental Initiative, accessed March 29, 2025, https://environmental-initiative.org/news-ideas/breaking-down-minnesotas-cumulative-impacts-law/
  52. Minnesota’s Cumulative Impacts Law: Rulemaking – Clean Water Action, accessed March 29, 2025, https://cleanwater.org/minnesotas-cumulative-impacts-law-rulemaking
  53. Can we mitigate environmental impacts from mining? – Geoscience Profession, accessed March 29, 2025, https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersections/faq/can-we-mitigate-environmental-impacts-mining/
  54. How to reduce the water usage of data center cooling systems, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.apl-datacenter.com/en/how-to-reduce-the-water-usage-of-data-center-cooling-systems/
  55. Mining | Water for all – Terrascope websites, accessed March 29, 2025, http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2017/mining/
  56. Green Remediation Best Management Practices: Mining Sites – CLU-IN, accessed March 29, 2025, https://clu-in.org/greenremediation/docs/gr_factsheet_miningsites.pdf
  57. What can be done to prevent or clean up acid mine drainage? – Geoscience Profession, accessed March 29, 2025, https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersections/faq/what-can-be-done-prevent-or-clean-acid-mine-drainage/
  58. How Data Centers Use Water, and How We’re Working to Use Water Responsibly, accessed March 29, 2025, https://blog.equinix.com/blog/2024/09/19/how-data-centers-use-water-and-how-were-working-to-use-water-responsibly/
  59. The world’s AI generators: rethinking water usage in data centers to build a more sustainable future – Lenovo StoryHub, accessed March 29, 2025, https://news.lenovo.com/data-centers-worlds-ai-generators-water-usage/
  60. The Future of Data Center Cooling: Innovations for Sustainability – Digital Realty, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.digitalrealty.com/resources/articles/future-of-data-center-cooling
  61. Water Changes – MN Dept. of Health, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/climate/water.html
  62. 2020 State Water Plan: Water and Climate – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/eqb/files/2020%20State%20Water%20Plan.pdf
  63. Climate Change Connections: Minnesota (Lakes) | US EPA, accessed March 29, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-connections-minnesota-lakes
  64. Clean Water Action is Fighting Global Warming and a Changing Climate in Minnesota, accessed March 29, 2025, https://cleanwater.org/clean-water-action-fighting-global-warming-and-changing-climate-minnesota
  65. Water Rights, Water Security and Climate Change / ClimateCheck, accessed March 29, 2025, https://climatecheck.com/risks/drought/water-rights-water-security-climate-change