Talking Points

Protect Our Water and Environment

Talking Points: Water Resources, Costs, and Future Concerns in Our Communities

1. Our Shared Resource

Our community relies on precious water resources: groundwater from aquifers like the Prairie Du Chien and Jordan, and surface water like the Cannon River.
These resources are essential for our drinking water. They support our recreation, agriculture, and local ecosystems. They are also vital to the very identity of our towns (Northfield, Elko New Market, Randolph, Castle Rock Township, and beyond).
Understanding our current situation and collaborating to protect our shared water future is crucial, especially with discussions about potential large-scale water users.

2. Water Regulations & Responsibilities: A Balancing Act?

State Level (MPCA):

Regulates stormwater discharge from construction sites and specific industries (including mining-related ones like metals operations, landfills) to minimize pollution entering waterways.
Requires permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for these activities.

City Level (Northfield):

Manages the public water supply system.
Undertakes major water infrastructure projects (e.g., current construction of a new Water Treatment Plant primarily for manganese removal; past/ongoing flood mitigation efforts).
May implement temporary water use restrictions (like lawn watering limits) during droughts – check the City website for current status.
Citizen Responsibility:
We are asked by state and local entities to help protect water quality through actions like:

Proper lawn care (using phosphorus-free fertilizer, keeping grass clippings off pavement).
Preventing illicit discharges (don’t dump waste into storm drains).
Managing runoff from our properties (rain gardens, proper downspout placement).
The Core Question: There’s a community concern about the perceived imbalance: Is there an imbalance where residents take steps to conserve, while regulations might allow large businesses permits that could deplete or contaminate the same shared resources?

3. The Cost of Water: City vs. Well

City Water (Northfield – 2025 Rates):

Base Fee: $12.86 per month (up 28% from $10.05 in 2024).
Usage Fee (Tier 1): $2.16 per 100 cubic feet (approx. 748 gallons) (up 28% from $1.69 in 2024). Higher tiers cost more per unit.
Other Fees: Bills also include charges for sewer (base + volume) and storm sewer, adding to the total cost.
Private Well Maintenance:

Costs vary widely depending on the well system, age, and water quality.
Expenses can include: Routine testing, pump maintenance/replacement, pressure tank issues, addressing contamination (filtration systems), potential need to deepen or replace the well if water levels drop significantly. Costs can range from minimal for testing to thousands for major repairs or new wells.

4. Northfield’s Current Water Quality (Based on 2023 Report)

Overall: The city’s drinking water meets or exceeds all federal safety standards.
Minerals/Impurities:

Naturally occurring minerals like Calcium and Magnesium (causing hardness) are present.
Nitrate, Barium, Radium were tested and found well within safe limits.
Low levels of PFBA (a PFAS compound) were detected but far below health advisory levels.
Manganese: Levels are elevated above state health guidance levels. This is not a violation of a safety standard but a health advisory.
Handling:

Water is treated with Chlorine (disinfection), Fluoride (dental health), and Polyphosphate (corrosion control).

5. Potential Future Impacts: Industry & Water Health

Comparing Now vs. Later: Predicting the exact impact is complex, but large water users introduce risks:

Mining: Can cause Acid Mine Drainage (heavy metals leaching into water), requires de-watering (lowering local water tables impacting wells/rivers), potential for spills/accidents.
Water Bottling: Directly extracts large volumes of groundwater, potentially impacting aquifer levels and nearby wells/surface water features.
“Meta Plants” (Data Centers): While large energy users, their direct water consumption is typically much lower than mining or bottling, often using closed-loop cooling systems. Their main water impact might be indirect (related to energy generation sources).
Key Concerns: Potential for reduced water availability and introduction/increase of contaminants.

6. How Could This Affect Our Community?

Events & Recreation:

Lower Cannon River levels could impact Defeat of Jesse James Days events, tubing, canoeing/kayaking.
Water quality degradation could harm fishing and make swimming/wading unsafe.
Impacts riverfront aesthetics and related events like farmers markets if the river environment changes drastically. The Cannon River is central to Northfield’s appeal and identity.
Essential Services & Livelihoods:
Fire Departments (All Communities): Rely on sufficient water pressure/availability (hydrants, tanker trucks filled from reliable sources, drafting from surface water); depletion could impact firefighting capacity region-wide.
Farmers: Depend on reliable groundwater/surface water for irrigation and livestock; depletion threatens agricultural viability.
Environment: Wetlands and conservation areas are highly sensitive to changes in water levels and quality, impacting plant life, fish, birds, and other wildlife.

7. The True Costs: Hidden & Historical

Hidden Costs to Communities:

Environmental: Long-term water contamination requiring expensive treatment, loss of biodiversity, land subsidence.
Economic: Reduced property values near impacted areas, loss of tourism/recreation revenue, potential strain on public health resources, burden of cleanup costs.
Social: Stress on communities, potential health impacts from contaminated water/air (e.g., respiratory issues from mine dust).
Minnesota’s Experience:

Past industrial activities (including mining and chemical production) have left environmental legacies.
Example: The estimated cost to remove PFAS contamination (from sources like 3M) from Minnesota’s wastewater is a staggering $14 to $28 BILLION over 20 years. This highlights the massive, long-term financial burden that environmental remediation can place on the state and taxpayers, often long after the original operations cease.

Conclusion:

Protecting our water resources requires understanding the current state, the potential risks of future development, the true costs involved, and the balance between individual responsibilities and industrial impacts. Informed community discussion is essential for shaping a sustainable future for our water.

Talking Points: Water Resources, Costs, and Future Concerns in Northfield, MN & Surrounding Area

State Water Use Restrictions (Drought Related):
- Beyond routine local ordinances, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages water appropriation permits for larger users (both surface water and groundwater).
- During low-flow conditions or drought, the DNR has the authority to suspend or restrict water withdrawals covered by these permits, especially those drawing from rivers and lakes.
- Restrictions are typically implemented progressively based on drought severity and specific watershed conditions. Priority is generally given to domestic water supply over other uses like irrigation or industrial processes during severe shortages.
State and Local Drought Monitoring & Management:
- Minnesota uses tools like the U.S. Drought Monitor and its own network of stream gauges, observation wells, and lake level monitoring to track drought conditions statewide.
- The state has a Drought Plan involving multiple agencies. This plan typically includes phases like Advisory, Warning, and Emergency, triggering different levels of response and communication.
- The DNR works with local water suppliers (like Northfield, Elko New Market) and permit holders, providing data and potentially mandating restrictions as drought conditions worsen. Local governments may implement stricter measures based on their specific system capacity and state guidance.
City/Township Level:
- Cities like Northfield and Elko New Market manage public water supply systems and implement local ordinances (e.g., watering schedules).
- Townships like Castle Rock primarily oversee land use; water supply is usually the responsibility of individual well owners. Smaller cities like Randolph may have limited public systems or rely heavily on private wells.
Citizen Responsibility:
- We are asked by state and local entities to help protect water quality through actions like:
  - Proper lawn care (using phosphorus-free fertilizer, keeping grass clippings off pavement).
  - Preventing illicit discharges (don’t dump waste into storm drains).
  - Managing runoff from our properties (rain gardens, proper downspout placement).
  - For well owners: Proper well maintenance and regular testing (especially for nitrates, bacteria, arsenic).
The Core Question: There’s a community concern about the perceived imbalance: While residents take steps to protect water, are state and local regulations strong enough, or are they allowing large businesses permits that could potentially deplete or contaminate the very same shared water resources we’re trying to conserve across our region?

Water Supply & Costs: A Local Comparison

Northfield (City System):
- Source: Groundwater wells drawing primarily from the Jordan aquifer.
- Costs (2025): Base Fee: $12.86/month; Tier 1 Usage: $2.16/100 cubic feet. Plus sewer/stormwater fees. Significant rate increase (28%) from 2024.
Elko New Market (City System):
- Source: Groundwater wells drawing from the Jordan and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers.
- Costs: Similar structure to Northfield with base fees and tiered usage rates for water and sewer (check ENM city website for current rates). Also implements watering restrictions (odd/even days).
Randolph (Likely Mixed):
- Source: Primarily private wells. May have a small municipal system serving parts of the city (verify with City of Randolph).
- Costs: Primarily individual well maintenance costs. City utility costs apply if connected to a municipal system.
Castle Rock Township (Private Wells):
- Source: Almost exclusively private groundwater wells, typically drawing from Jordan, Prairie du Chien, or shallower glacial drift aquifers.
- Costs: Homeowner bears all costs for well drilling, maintenance (pump, pressure tank, testing), and any necessary water treatment systems.
General Well Maintenance Costs:
- Vary widely: Routine testing, pump maintenance/replacement, pressure tank issues, addressing contamination (filtration systems), potential need to deepen or replace the well if water levels drop. Costs range from minimal for testing to thousands for major repairs or new wells.

Current Water Quality: Northfield & Neighbors

Northfield:
- Overall: Meets/exceeds federal standards (2023 Report).
- Minerals/Impurities: Notable for elevated Manganese (above health advisory, not safety standard). Also contains typical hardness minerals (Calcium/Magnesium). Other tested contaminants within limits.
- Handling: Treats with Chlorine, Fluoride, Polyphosphate.
Elko New Market:
- Overall: Generally meets federal standards (refer to ENM’s latest Consumer Confidence Report – CCR).
- Minerals/Impurities: Also experiences elevated Manganese in some wells. May also have issues with Iron. Contains hardness minerals. Has implemented measures like flushing hydrants and adding polyphosphate to manage manganese/iron effects.
- Handling: Treats with Chlorine, Fluoride, and Polyphosphate. Regularly monitors quality.
Randolph & Castle Rock Township (Private Wells):
- Quality Varies: Water quality is highly variable from well to well depending on depth, geology, and surrounding land use.
- Common Concerns: Potential for Nitrates (especially in shallower wells near agricultural land), bacteria (if well cap/casing isn’t sealed), Arsenic (naturally occurring in some MN groundwater), Iron, Manganese, and hardness.
- Handling: Homeowner responsibility. Regular testing is crucial. Treatment systems (softeners, iron filters, reverse osmosis, nitrate removal) may be necessary depending on test results. Dakota and Rice Counties often offer resources or testing services for private well owners.

Potential Future Impacts: Industry & Water Health

Environment:
- Wetlands, conservation areas, trout streams, and other sensitive ecosystems across the region are dependent on stable water levels and quality.

The True Costs: Hidden & Historical

Hidden Costs to Communities:
- Environmental: Long-term water contamination requiring expensive treatment (public or private), loss of biodiversity, land subsidence.
- Economic: Reduced property values (especially those on wells if aquifers are impacted), loss of tourism/recreation revenue, potential strain on public health resources, burden of cleanup costs.
- Social: Stress on communities, potential health impacts from contaminated water/air.
Legacy of Closed Mines & Rehabilitation Costs:
- Minnesota has numerous legacy/abandoned mine sites (mostly Iron Range) lacking responsible parties for cleanup.
- Hazards: Physical dangers (pits, shafts) and environmental contamination (Acid Mine Drainage, heavy metals) that can persist for centuries.
- State Role: MN DNR’s Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program addresses hazards, often prioritizing safety, using federal/state funds.
- Cost & Complexity: Reclamation is extremely expensive (millions per site), especially if long-term water treatment is needed. Illustrates the difficulty and cost of addressing past environmental damage.
Minnesota’s Experience (PFAS Example):
- The estimated cost to remove PFAS contamination (from sources like 3M) from Minnesota’s wastewater is $14 to $28 BILLION over 20 years. This shows the massive, long-term financial burden environmental remediation can place on the state/taxpayers.

Conclusion:

Protecting our shared water resources across Northfield, Elko New Market, Randolph, Castle Rock, and neighboring areas requires understanding the current state, the potential risks of future development, the true costs involved, and the balance between individual responsibilities and industrial impacts. Informed, cross-community discussion is essential for shaping a sustainable future for our water.

Here is a list of talking points with explanations to help understand the potential impact of the proposed limestone mine and other industrial water uses on Minnesota’s water:

Talking Point 1: A proposed limestone mine near Northfield would drain an estimated 10 million gallons of groundwater every day for 50 years. This is a massive and sustained withdrawal of our precious water resources.

Explanation: The sheer scale of the proposed dewatering operation is alarming. Ten million gallons per day is an enormous amount of water, and to continue this for half a century could severely deplete the local aquifer, which many residents rely on for their drinking water.

Talking Point 2: This proposed mine is located in Dakota County, near Northfield, an area that, like much of Minnesota, is currently experiencing drought conditions. Adding such a large water demand during a drought will only make the situation worse.

Explanation: Rice County, where Northfield is located, has faced significant drought, with early 2025 being particularly dry . With less natural replenishment of groundwater due to drought, the mine’s massive water withdrawal could have even more severe consequences for local water availability.

Talking Point 3: The continuous removal of groundwater for the mine can lower the water table, potentially causing nearby private wells to run dry or experience reduced water levels ³.

Explanation: When a large operation like a quarry pumps out groundwater, it creates a “cone of depression” in the aquifer, drawing water away from surrounding areas. This can directly impact homeowners and other users who depend on wells for their water supply .

Talking Point 4: Groundwater and surface water are connected. The mine’s dewatering could reduce the flow of water to nearby rivers, streams, and wetlands, harming aquatic life and the health of these ecosystems .

Explanation: Groundwater often feeds surface water bodies, especially during dry periods. If the mine intercepts this groundwater, it could lead to lower water levels in local creeks like Prairie Creek, which residents near a similar proposed mine in Rice County have already expressed concerns about.

Talking Point 5: We have seen this happen before in Minnesota. Limestone quarries in other parts of the state have caused springs to dry up and have altered the flow and temperature of streams.

Explanation: The cases of the Osmundson quarry, which caused Sweets Spring to stop flowing when dewatered, and the Big Spring quarry, which significantly reduced flow to Camp Creek and increased its temperature, demonstrate the real risks associated with limestone quarry dewatering in Minnesota.

Talking Point 6: While this mine is a major concern, other large industrial users in Minnesota, like Niagara Bottling and data centers, will also consume vast amounts of water, adding to the overall strain on our water resources .

Explanation: Niagara Bottling’s plant in Elko New Market is permitted to withdraw up to 365 million gallons of groundwater per year . Large data centers can use millions of gallons of water per day for cooling . The cumulative effect of all these large-scale water withdrawals can have significant long-term impacts on Minnesota’s water security .

Talking Point 7: The environmental review process for this mine is underway, and it’s crucial that the potential impacts on our water resources are thoroughly and independently evaluated .

Explanation: Environmental review is meant to gather information about a project’s potential effects on the environment and help decision-makers make informed choices. It’s important that this process for the Waterford Township Limestone Quarry is rigorous and considers the concerns of the local community .

Talking Point 8: Many residents of Waterford Township are strongly opposed to this mine due to concerns about their drinking water, wetlands, and air quality . Their voices need to be heard.

Explanation: Local communities often bear the direct consequences of mining operations. The intense opposition in Waterford Township highlights the significant concerns residents have about the potential negative impacts on their lives and the environment .

Talking Point 9: Protecting Minnesota’s water is essential for our health, our economy, and our future. We must ensure that large-scale industrial projects do not compromise this vital resource, especially during times of drought .

Explanation: Clean and abundant water is fundamental for drinking, agriculture, recreation, and the overall well-being of our state . We need to advocate for responsible water management and explore alternative, less water-intensive practices for industries .