Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0) <br />t <br /> <br />~ Metropolitan Council <br /> <br />~ Working/or the Region, Planning/or the Future <br /> <br />Environmental Services <br />Internal Memorandum <br /> <br />Date: January 14,2000 <br /> <br />To: Sandra Pinel, Principal Reviewer <br />From: !Jary Oberts, Environmental Planing and Evalnation <br /> <br />Subject: City of Ramsey Comprehensive Plan Review <br />Water Supply Plan Element <br />Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18160-1 <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The December 1999 Ramsey Local Comprehensive Plan submittal contains an update of the previously <br />approved (May 11, 1995) water supply plan, as required under Minnesota Statutes, S473.859, subd.3 (4). <br />The City of Ramsey's earlier submittal was the second one approved by the Metropolitan Council. The <br />update is dated June 4, 1999, and was prepared for the city by Bolton and Menk, Inc. The Council <br />reviews water supply plan updates in the same manner as the original submittal. The review by MCES - <br />EPE staff follows. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />The plan submittal was reviewed for content according to the "Metropolitan Area Community Water Supply <br />Plan Content Guidelines" adopted jointly by the Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural <br />Resources (DNR) in January 1994. This Council review focuses on updates to the previously approved <br />plan. Comments will also be submitted to the DNR for its consideration in the review ofthis plan update <br />according to Minnesota Statutes, S 1 03G .291, subd.3. The city's wellhead protection efforts under the <br />Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) wellhead protection rules (adopted November, 1997) will be <br />reviewed separately when completed by the city. <br /> <br />GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> <br />The plan contains a good update of the physical system and the changes in demand over the period since <br />original plan submittal. Differences that occurred in the first plan between the city's population projections <br />and those of the Metropolitan Council have been rectified such that they differ very little over the 20-year <br />planning period. The plan, however, leaves unaddressed many of the same elements noted in the last <br />Metropolitan Council review; specifically, data on unaccounted-for water losses and a discussion of how it <br />